Employee fraud is not new. What is new is how swiftly employers can now strike back when they discover company funds have vanished.

Not so long ago, only large corporations in major lawsuits reached for heavy legal weaponry like Mareva injunctions and Norwich orders. Today, mid-sized employers are using them too — because once money disappears, it is nearly impossible to recover it without immediate legal action.

A Mareva injunction freezes assets. A Norwich order forces disclosure of where the money went and who moved it. Together, they stop a thief from draining accounts or hiding cash behind relatives and shell companies. Once considered extraordinary, these orders are now routine — a sign of how common employee fraud has become.

But here is the hard truth: by the time an employer needs one, the damage is usually done. The money is gone. And the legal bill for recovery will be steep.

Getting a freezing order is far from simple. It is urgent, evidence-heavy and expensive. Tracing the funds can be worse — especially if the fraud ran for months or crossed borders. Employers who win in court often wish they had spent a fraction of the cost on proper hiring in the first place.

The real failure is almost always at the start: a lazy hiring process. Too many companies treat background checks as bureaucratic paperwork. They are not. They are necessary risk management.

Anyone with access to money, data, or financial systems should face enhanced screening — not just a couple of reference calls and a resume check. Comprehensive vetting can uncover falsified credentials, past lawsuits, financial distress or other red flags. None of it is foolproof. But it is far better than blind trust.

Most workplace frauds are not committed by new hires or obvious bad actors. They are committed by long-time, "trusted" employees who know the system. By the time the fraud is discovered, it's too late. Employers are left chasing ghosts through offshore accounts — and paying lawyers handsomely to do it.

The solution is not in the courtroom but in the hiring room. Employers should:

• Strengthen background checks.
• Match the depth of screening to the role's financial responsibility.
• Make checks a condition of employment.
• Train HR and managers to spot warning signs early.

Freezing and tracing orders are powerful, but they are emergency surgery. Prevention is the cure.

Strong hiring practices cost little compared to the price of chasing a thief through the courts. In employment law, as in medicine, prevention is not merely cheaper than the cure — it is often the only cure.

Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario and Alberta, and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Jack Powles is an associate at Levitt LLP.