Using data spanning 2002-2013 from the ACFE Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, and made available through the Institute for Fraud Prevention IFP) the authors examined private company FRF cases in comparison to those at public companies and found several key difference. These included the observation that a stronger antifraud environment in public companies appears to lead public company FRF perpetrators to use perhaps to make the fraud less obvious, rather than other fraud schemes such as fictitious revenues. a. Classifying expenditures as assets b. Off balance sheet liabilities c. Timing differences d. Bribery and illegal gratuities