A new report shows almost 9 in 10 employers are experiencing candidate fraud. How can employers identify and address misrepresentation without creating unnecessary barriers for genuine applicants?
Hiring someone is often an exercise in trust. Employers rely on candidates to be honest about their experience, qualifications and capabilities – but what happens when those claims don’t stack up?
According to a recent report by ATC Events & Media, the vast majority (89 per cent) of organisations in Australia and New Zealand are experiencing candidate fraud or misrepresentation.
With the increasing availability of AI and sophisticated deepfake technologies, Gartner predicts one in four candidate profiles worldwide will be fake by 2028.
Despite the prevalence of candidate fraud, ATC’s report found only 27 per cent of organisations have updated their policy or governance frameworks to address it.
For recruiters, the challenge is often knowing when a discrepancy warrants further investigation, and how to verify claims without adding unnecessary steps to the hiring process.
Below, Nicole Gorton, Director at Robert Half, offers practical tips to identify misrepresentation, verify candidates’ claims and reduce risk without slowing down hiring.
What are the most common forms of candidate fraud?
Candidate misrepresentation can range from somewhat inflated job titles to fully fledged identity fraud.
ATC’s report found that CVs and application content were the most common sources of candidate misrepresentation. The graph below shows the other most frequently reported sources.
According to Gorton, a candidate’s employment history is often broadly accurate while the detail of their experience is not.
“The most common examples of candidate misinterpretation [I encounter] include overstating responsibilities, seniority or technical capabilities, extending employment dates to cover gaps, and claiming involvement in projects or achievements where their contribution was more limited,” she says.
“Structured interviews with detailed, experience-based questions can help HR teams test whether a candidate genuinely understands the work they claim to have performed.” – Nicole Gorton, Director, Robert Half
This means it’s imperative that employers look beyond job titles and employment dates to assess the substance of a candidate’s experience.
HR action point: Ask candidates to talk through how they approached a project, what decisions they made and what their own contribution was. Hearing someone explain the work behind an achievement can give recruiters a better sense of how much experience they actually have.
What are the warning signs that a candidate may be misrepresenting their experience or credentials?
Candidate misrepresentation often manifests as a series of small inconsistencies, says Gorton.
“HR teams should pay attention to [whether] employment dates, job titles or responsibilities differ across a CV, online profile and what the candidate says during an interview,” she says.
“Another warning sign is when someone struggles to explain experience they have presented confidently on their CV. A candidate claiming significant ownership of a project should generally be able to explain the decisions they made, challenges they encountered and outcomes they delivered.”
A candidate’s account of their experience should also stand up to independent scrutiny, she adds. If referees cannot substantiate the responsibilities described, recruiters need to revisit those claims.
HR action point: Comparing their CV, online profile and interview responses can help recruiters spot inconsistencies and work out whether anything needs checking further. If something doesn’t quite add up, ask the candidate about it rather than jumping to conclusions.
Which checks or assessment methods are most useful?
Once a recruiter has questions about a candidate’s claims, the next step is to establish what can be verified and how.
According to Gorton, the strongest approach is to use several layers of verification.
Standard background, role and reference checks can establish whether key details are accurate, but the interview stage is often recruiters’ best opportunity to examine the detail behind those claims.
“Structured interviews with detailed, experience-based questions can help HR teams test whether a candidate genuinely understands the work they claim to have performed,” she says.
“For roles where particular skills are critical, practical assessments can be particularly useful. Rather than simply asking whether somebody has a capability, employers can ask them to work through a realistic scenario or explain how they would approach a problem they are likely to encounter in the role.”
In-person interviews, where feasible, can help employers verify candidates’ experience while also building trust in the recruitment process. Gartner research found 62 per cent of candidates said they are more likely to apply to a position if the organisation requires in-person interviews.
With AI making it easier to produce polished application materials, training hiring managers to identify and investigate inconsistencies is increasingly important. Employers should also consider setting out clear expectations around AI use and accurate representation in job ads or on their careers website.
HR action point: Remind hiring managers not to judge an application on how polished it sounds. While spelling and grammar still matter, a CV or cover letter that feels a little clunky or less carefully worded isn’t necessarily a sign of a poor candidate – it’s the sign of the human behind the words. Encourage them to focus on the substance of what someone is saying – their experience, skills and examples – rather than how neatly they’ve packaged it.
How can employers conduct thorough assessments without adding unnecessary delays?
The rise in false or misleading applications adds another layer of work for recruitment teams, many of whom are already under pressure to fill roles in a fast-paced talent market.
To help avoid delays, Gorton suggests building verification into the recruitment process as early as possible rather than leaving important checks until the final stage.
“For example, employers can identify the two or three credentials, skills or experiences that are genuinely critical to a role and verify those specifically,” she says.
“A structured interview question or short role-relevant assessment early in the process can expose inconsistencies without requiring every candidate to complete an extensive screening exercise.”
This approach allows recruiters to concentrate their efforts where inaccuracies could have the greatest impact, rather than applying the same level of scrutiny to every claim made by every applicant.
“The objective should not be to create more barriers for genuine candidates,” says Gorton. “It is to focus verification on the claims that matter most to whether somebody can safely and successfully perform the role.”
HR action point: Work out which skills and experience really matter for the role and focus checks on those. Bringing a few targeted questions or assessments into the early stages of hiring can help recruiters pick up concerns sooner, without making every candidate jump through extra hoops.
🧰 HR’s career resource toolkit
- Course: Learn how to approach talent management as a dynamic and holistic process in your organisation with this course from AHRI
- Article: Why you should ask these 12 interview questions
- Article: 9 interview questions that could save your hirer’s remorse
