The following extract outlines how a long-time ING employee, trusted and respected in her firm, conducted large-scale fraud to the value of approximately A$30 million. The employee claimed that the fraud was made possible by a lax supervisor, and the author of the article below questioned the controls in ING. ING responded by arguing that it was satisfied with its security measures. Consider the article below:

The multinational insurance and finance company ING suffered a $30 million net loss from the massive fraud committed by its senior accountant, Rajina Subramaniam, court documents reveal. Files released after Subramaniam was sentenced to at least seven years' jail last week, show the company has recovered only a third of the $45.3 million the 42-year-old stole over five years. While most of the incredible haul of luxury goods and property purchased with the money - including $16 million worth of Paspaley Pearls jewellery and eight Waterfront apartments - has been recovered and resold by the company, it has taken a substantial hit. 'There is no realistic possibility that the full cost of those items can be fully recovered, documents tendered by the prosecution state. This is due, in part, to the fact that Subramaniam paid well above market rates for the properties she purchased. The court documents also paint a less-than-flattering picture of internal security at the section of ING where Subramaniam worked, ING Australia Holdings. During her interview with police shortly after being arrested, Subramaniam said: 'My manager is so slack, he didn't care, so I was sort of doing it to see when I would get caught (but] you know, he just left it open for me. She said the manager - who cannot be named - would come in at 10 am and appeared not to be interested in the job. It is understood Subramaniam did not have any formal accounting qualifications but had worked her way up from the position of assistant accountant. As a senior accountant she made 200 illegal transfers into her personal accounts or directly to shops and real estate agents. She then used the computer log- ins of former staff to delete the records or alter them so the transactions appeared legitimate.

REQUIRED

A. In your opinion, what could ING have done better in this situation?

B. What principles or threats did the staff member breach?

C. What safeguards can ING put in place in the future, to minimise the possibility of this occurring again?