Connect with us

Accounting

Protect your firm from first-party and third-party cyber exposures

Published

on

In today’s digital landscape, it is no surprise that there appears to be a new cybersecurity story in the news every week, from attacks on major infrastructure to small companies being held for ransom. The risk of cyber threats continues to grow for CPA firms, along with other professional services firms, as all are considered prime targets for cybercriminals given the wealth of sensitive client data, financial information, and/or legal documents they maintain. 

Don’t be lulled into a false sense of comfort that your firm (or your clients) are too small or too large to be attacked. Camico is seeing an uptick in the number of cyber-related claims impacting CPA firms of all sizes and, unfortunately, the severity of these cyber crimes and ransomware attacks have grown in recent years. 

Some of the more frequent categories of loss for CPA firms related to cyber claims include:

  • Social engineering; 
  • Funds transfer fraud;
  • Theft of data;
  • Loss of laptop or data stick
  • Unauthorized use of networks;
  • Failure to protect client confidential information shared with a third-party service provider;
  • Computer system cloud hack;
  • Lost profits related to cyber events; and,
  • Ransom attacks.

Identifying key cyber risks and best practices to mitigate risk exposures is important to safeguard confidential information, maintain client trust and ensure your firm’s continuity. One of the important concepts people must be aware of when evaluating their cybersecurity exposures is the difference between first-party risks and third-party risks. First-party risks are damages and losses you incur from a cyberattack or security breach of your firm, whereas third-party risks often arise when a hacker has penetrated the firm’s (or client’s) computer system causing damages to a client or other third party as a result of the cyber incident for which the firm may be blamed in whole or in part.

As you would expect, first-party cyber exposures have become increasingly problematic for CPA firms as cyber criminals are targeting CPA firms and tax professionals with greater frequency because of the abundance of client data found on CPA firms’ computers. If they are successful in gaining access to a firm’s information infrastructure, there can be costly measures that need to be taken by the firm such as hiring IT forensic experts to determine the extent of the breach, consulting with attorneys who specialize in data breach laws and notification obligations, and providing credit monitoring to those impacted by the breach. 

What may be surprising to some CPAs, however, is the increase in third-party cyber exposures that are impacting firms. These situations often arise when a client has been hacked, and the hacker has penetrated the client’s computer system and, once inside, causes all manner of losses for which the CPA firm may be blamed. Unfortunately, many of these incidents tend to be high-dollar claims against the CPA firm. These claims typically include allegations that the firm failed to detect red flags associated with communications executed by the hacker, falling below the standard of care by initiating wire transfers (later determined to be fraudulent) without “proper” client authorization, failure to “warn and advise” clients of the potential risks/threats of cyber attacks, and the list goes on. 

Consider this real-life scenario: a client of the CPA firm was hacked, and the hacker penetrated and commandeered the client’s email account. The hacker emailed several requests to the CPA firm to wire funds to a new account — a classic “man in the middle” attack. After receiving each request, a CPA firm staff member emailed the client to verify the wire transfer instructions. As the hacker had full control of the client’s email account, the hacker was able to respond back to the CPA firm to verify the payments to the hacker’s overseas bank account. 

Such outcomes have become all too common. With the increased number of claims related to fraudulent wire transfers, the best risk management practice in the absence of any written protocols to the contrary is to verbally confirm all wire transfer requests with the client and not rely on email or voicemail confirmations. 

Unfortunately, technological advances have permitted sophisticated scammers to create AI versions not only of people’s voices, but also realistic avatars of scam targets so that you can’t trust your ears or your eyes on virtual calls (e.g., Microsoft Teams). Ideally, you and your client will have a code word and/or phrase to confirm the authenticity of the person you are speaking to.
 
Cyber insurance protects against financial losses related to data breaches or other covered cyber events. Cyber insurance coverage is basically divided along two lines: 

  • First-party, which refers to losses directly suffered by the policyholder (or insured) firm in response to a firm’s data breach or other covered cyber event, and
  • Third-party, which refers to damages alleged by clients or other third parties that the negligence of the CPA firm contributed in whole or in part to the third party’s cyber-related loss.

It is possible that a single cyber incident may give rise to both damage suffered by the firm (first-party losses) and damages allegedly suffered by others that blame the firm (third-party losses). The relationship between the first and third parties can be formed in many ways. It can be contractual (for example, engagement letters), built through tort law, common law or other ways. CPA firm clients are third parties, and others may become a third party based on the nature of an incident. Clients may have insurance of their own, making them a first party with their own cyber insurance carrier. 

First-party insurance typically covers the direct costs of actions needed after a firm has had a data breach, extortion, ransomware attack or other hacker malfeasance against the firm. Third-party cyber-liability insurance, on the other hand, covers the costs of dealing with the claims of other parties that seek to hold your firm at least partially responsible for damages that they have incurred because of a cyber incident. Sometimes, the line between first-party damage and third-party damage becomes blurred — especially if a firm and its client have both been breached, and forensic analysis cannot conclusively establish either the sequence of events leading up to the breach and/or how the breach occurred.

Understanding the difference between first-party and third-party risks is essential when seeking cyber insurance. Ideally, every CPA firm should have some degree of insurance coverage for both first-party and third-party risks as the CPA firm faces exposure to many accusations and lawsuits in the event of a compromise or data breach impacting its clients’ data. For example, everyone faces risks of inadvertently forwarding a malware-infected email message that subsequently wreaks havoc after being opened by a recipient, or of their computers and networks being breached and subsequently exploited by hackers to serve as launching pads from which to target others. 

Relying on only one type of cyber insurance that may be limited to either first- or third-party coverage may leave businesses exposed to significant financial and legal risks. Whereas investing in both first-party and third-party cyber insurance ensures greater protection against today’s growing cyber threats. 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending