I've also heard that a significant amount of the detected fraudsters are simply let go. Essentially, a company would rather ask the current CFO to leave about learning the information rather than admit it had a CFO who was able to steal millions.

I spent a few years living near a nationally well known American university with very tight housing. And we had to pay `finder's fee` to apartment managers for the privilege of applying for a rental to the tune of a grand or so. Like 20+ years ago.

So, yah much there's much white collar crime going on, from a grand at a time to a few millions. I'm not surprised.

Most of the fraud that is commitment with parties on both side of the transaction is for practical purposes undetectable and unprovable, no matter the resources available to parties investigating the fraud.

The only break you get is when one of the parties makes a mistake like using company networks to conspire or sours on the deal and rats everyone out. Then you get to roll them all up.

Also, using cut outs like family members or trusts create reasonable cause for doubt unless their is overwhelming evidence that the arrangement was fraudulent, no matter how obvious it seems on the face of it.

Especially at banks. Very embarrassing and not worth the attention it would garner if they pressed charges. There are a lot of financial institution that have very weak controls. I've seen it first hand.

Anecdote from third world country here. Friend works in 'IT security company', told me banks are the worst here.

One bank had guys in the IT department work for a couple of months then quit, one after the other, apparetly after having stolen 'enough' money (whatever that means to a thief). Rinse and repeat, till their company got called in. That bank's systems were apparently that bad.

I always wondered whether it was that the bank had no proof of the theft or an image thing where they could not afford to go after them because customers would lose confidence in them.

I once worked for a bank and I recall they had a policy not to bother chasing after any fraud below a (surprisingly high to me) dollar figure, except if it was suspected that an employee was involved. If there was suspicion that an employee was involved, then they would go all out even for the smallest amount.

Could make it easier and do something like what Quebec does in small-claims courts: don't allow lawyers.

Should be fine for those with tax returns that are simple enough to understand. Not so much for those that choose complicated financial structures.

In a criminal context in the US, you have a constitutional right to legal representation. I suspect Canada is the same, but I don't know for sure. In any case, this isn't a viable solution, even if it were a good idea, which I'm skeptical of.