How Insider Threat Awareness Intersects With Key Areas: Fraud Prevention, Ethics, And Integrity

Hello and welcome to the Australian Institute of Insider Threat. This is the 2nd week of GITM, which is the Global Insider Threat Awareness Month. Hi, my name is Boaz Fischer. I'm the founder of the Australian Institute of Insider Threat. And today we have a special guest from AFCA, which stands for Australian Fraud and Anti-Corruption Academy, and we have Michael Callum. Welcome.

Hi, hi, Boaz. Nice to be here with you. Don't do this too often, so I'm pretty excited about

it. Thank you for joining us. So today we're gonna discuss the sort of the integrity between insider threat awareness and fraud ethics and integrity and see how, you know, together we can strengthen the resilience of organization and also sort of foster a culture of ethical behavior. But before we sort of dive in, I want to, for you, Michael, to give a bit of a background of, you know, where you come from, your role within the organization and so forth, and let the viewers understand who you are.

Oh, thanks, Boaz. I really do appreciate the time and effort and the ability to have a chat with you here this morning. I'm, as you said, Michael Callan. I'm I've got a sort of an eclectic mix of things I've done over the years, but I fell happily into ethics, fraud awareness, and integrity activities quite late in my career. I started off as a military officer, did 20 years in the regular army and did a wide variety of both operational and staff work, you know, paperwork. I left as the head of army's workforce planning. just before Timor. I then joined the public service and worked in a range of both personnel procurement, which is an interesting space to work in, in the public service and social security portfolios. And I found the social security one was the most difficult, not because it's hard work. It's just that the range of people you meet there are quite— They have some significant problems and challenges and they, it's quite debilitating in some respects to work in that environment. That led me back into the Department of Defense as a public servant working in the family support area. And I would consider that to be one of the best jobs I've ever had. But after 5 years there, it was a little bit too much for me. And I was asked to take over as the Inspector General of the Australian Department of Defense, which is a fraud and corruption role. Now, I'd been studying it for a while and I had an interest in that area and I had done a range of investigative roles in my time. And I spent about another 5 years there as the Inspector General, completed a Master's of Anti-Corruption in Vienna and then decided at the ripe old age of 58, I would leave the department and run my own training organization. which we've done. So Australian Fraud and Anti-Corruption Academy was set up in around about 2018 specifically to do digital forensics, but we expanded out into anti-corruption, fraud control, government investigations. And we've also done, funnily enough, countering violent extremism because of the eclectic range of skills we've got. And recently started open source. And a lot of the stuff that we train in the academy is focused on the integrity side of the house. And we're finding that it is, all of it's quite integrated. And as we'll probably discuss this morning, there's not an element that we don't train in that can't be used in some other area. But it all, to me, in terms of the insider threat, it all comes down to insider threats.

Yeah, look, very interesting. Yes. Yes. So from your definition or from your point of view, how would you define the sort of fraud awareness given that we're going through the months of insider threat awareness. What's your, how do you see it?

I think fraud awareness is a sheep, what we call the sheep dip approach in most organizations. So it boils down to this good versus bad argument and what it fundamentally misses out on is that fraud is a human activity. Fraud doesn't happen because the systems break. Fraud happens because people break the system. And so the insider threat in fraud awareness is not well known. People don't realize that the insider threat on the insider that's got access to information or to funding or capability to move funding is your biggest risk in a fraud sense.

Yeah.

The external threat in a fraud sense is quite minor. I think in my experience, I've never seen an external threat to any agency create a massive loss. It's always the insider that causes the biggest loss. And in particular when they're corrupt or they're using their insider knowledge to rip the system off.

Yeah.

And it's really hard to explain that to people who are not in the know. For a lot of people, it's simply credit cards, the biggest fraud threat.

Interesting.

And I look at them and go, even in the biggest agency, the most I've ever seen lost on credit card is about $80,000. Yet at the same agency, I've said I've seen $45 million being lost because of an insider threat. So that's, this is this lack of understanding for agencies around what fraud is and what the insider threat, their role they play in major fraud.

Really? Yeah. Interesting you say that. So what role do you think that insider threat awareness could play in strengthening, you know, organizations' fraud prevention measures?

I think if we understood that it's a human factor. So when I've always taught fraud control to people, I've taught there are 4 types of people on the planet. There's the absolutely honest person who will follow the rules no matter what. Yep. Then there's the, which is a rare individual in any organization. Then there's the next individual who is the B-type personality who, look, might bend the rules occasionally, might not refund a travel allowance, might have accidentally used the credit card the wrong way, might have taken a few pens and pencils from the workplace for their kids' school year. But generally will follow the rules and are ethical. That's then followed by the C-type personality, which is essentially the person that if an opportunity arises, will take the opportunity and steal.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yep. Yep.

Right. There's a fourth, then that comes from stuff out of the '50s. We've known about this since management theory started hitting its ropes in the '50s. When we get to that, I've added an extra person to this, the real insider threat, and they're the predators. They're the D-type. I call them a D-type personality. They use their C-type people to rip the organization off. They set the conditions to actually break the systems. They set the conditions upon which they can conduct fraudulent activity, whether it be steal money, steal equipment, or steal information and they can be there for a very long time and they do essentially, and I hate to use to say this, they use the same techniques that a pedophile uses.

Oh, okay.

Okay. So they will groom not only the victims, but they'll also groom the agency that they're in to believe, A, they're a good person, B, that they're doing the right thing for the right reason. And also they will And they should be either breaking down and simplifying or building up and making more complicated systems to hide within.

Yep, yep, yep.

So this is where people don't understand. A lot of the big fraud's not actually done by someone with a credit card or access to petty cash, or it's done by people who spend their time grooming others within the organization grooming the organization itself and setting up the conditions for their success and the organization's failure. And if people can't— need to understand that, if I was putting in fraud awareness, and I've always have, is you have to understand the type of person that you're dealing with. Now, what does that mean in terms of prevention? You would be looking very carefully at where your highest risks are within an organization and who's got control of that. And monitoring that quite closely.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And

especially if you get that person that says there's nothing wrong in my side of the house, everything, as you can see, everything's perfect and we've never had a trip up. That'd be the first person I'd go and look at because, yeah, if you think about it, people make mistakes. They send the money to the wrong place. They accidentally use their credit cards. They overspend because they, it was Thursday and they forgot what they were supposed to do. But The perfect balance, never makes a mistake organization worries me because that's the one where it's because you, you can't see in. And normally they don't report. When you don't get reports on time or the reports are scant or the reports never say there's a problem.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's, that's grooming.

Yeah,

I can trust him. He always delivers. There's no problems with his organization. You know, whether it be the first place I go looking for an insider threat.

Yeah, yeah.

I'll be looking at everything he's done. And I think that's an important part of building a sense of how people operate and the psychology of it.

Yeah. So you mentioned about prevention just early on. So how would organizations sort of enhance their fraud awareness using sort of programs by insider threat detection and prevention sort of countermeasures?

See, the thing with the insider threat part of what we tend to focus on is the things that are low-hanging fruit and easiest to identify.

Correct.

That's why if you ever talk to anyone in any government department, they say the biggest threat is credit card. It's not because credit card's so easy to pick up. So easy. That's the only reason we focus on it, not because it's the biggest threat, but it's the one that is the easiest to pick up.

Yes.

Because as soon as you spend above a limit or the spending is not right, the pattern is easy to find. AI can, you can generate AI scripts that will follow that when it, you know, with certain conditions and pick that up quite easily. Where it's, where your focus has to be is on where big ticket items that are hard to see or very complex environments where it's hard to see where the money's going.

Yeah.

So for instance, especially in the ICT space, you know, if I can gain access as a businessman inside, say ICT where they're desperate for workers, I can then start setting up my own workers in key critical positions within ICT to continue to funnel contracts into my business.

Correct. Correct.

So one of the biggest ones I've ever seen is where someone's been brought in to do, to be an advisor to a senior executive officer in the department and he was there on a no-cost contract. So the department wasn't paying him there to provide advice. Now, that's a target in it. That sort of thing is what you really need to do and it's hard to pick up. So you have to have systems in place that do 2 things. It says to the contract managers and the contract Signers, you need to have done your due diligence and you need to monitor these people. And there are certain conditions that we won't accept. And if they appear in the system, they should alert someone. The other one is listen closely to junior staff because the junior staff can actually see what's happening, but their senior staff are overriding them. That's normally how it happens.

Yeah, really interesting. Yeah.

So the whistleblower programs are really important. In that regard, I've got someone I can tell, I think this is not right. Yes. Simplification of systems. So if you have a very complex approval process in which you've got to go through 18 separate legs to get to an outcome, it's hard to monitor that. But if you've got a simple process in which you can tell who's taken a decision, At each point, much, much simpler to pick up. And I think they're the sort of things where the basic principle is, is I should be monitoring the behavior of people and the flow of paperwork and I need to have some sort of access to junior staff to have them sort of being the canary in the coal mine.

Yes. Yeah.

Other behaviors that you should keep an eye on, especially at the senior management level, for insider threat is unusual relationships between your decision makers and external contractors. It's really, really close, but they're delivering. Most agencies go, oh, well, they've got a good working relationship and they're delivering. I'd be looking closely at that and monitoring that behavior.

Yeah.

And the final one is to remind senior executives because they're the big decision makers in any organization, whether it be private or public enterprise, that their relationship with contractors is a relation, a working relationship. If it becomes closer than that, then they need to consider their position on it because it is, as you can see now, you know, with PwC, the Big 4, Ernst& Young, et cetera, I think it's a cozy relationship.

Yes.

And because they've had access to government information and they've come in and had access to government information, they've got ability to influence. So again, that final one is to make sure that when people have access like that to your information, there's some sort of control around it.

Correct.

You know, and a good example of that is, and it's a major business, major international business had a contractor inside a government agency. That contractor had access to, because they needed to, they had access to information on a brand new tender coming out just by accident. And when they did, what they did was they took that information back to their bosses, the major company, and said, hey, look, this tender's coming up and we've got the insider run on it. What the business did was really interesting was that they sacked the guy on the spot.

Yes.

They went back to the major agency and said, This, this, we've been given this. We are accusing ourselves from this tender even though we've got the best equipment for it. We're accusing ourselves and we will not. That guy's been sacked. So the major agency accepted that they were accused. It was quite a $250 million contract, I think. But, but that, that leads to the thought of you should be monitoring the contractor.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And their access to info.

Yeah. So it very much leads to my next question. And, and you partly already answered, which is the common overlaps between insider threats and fraud and what should organizations should be aware of.

Just ask that question again.

So it's very, so you mentioned in a lot of things around monitoring. So when I look at from an insider threat and then I listen to what you mentioned, There's quite a few overlapping between insider threat and fraud. It's not as if they're 2 disparate situations and so forth. I suppose the question is, how do you see that sort of overlap between insider threat and fraud?

I think it's almost integral. I think the insight, you've got an insider threat, who's purposely there to gain advantage for themselves. Now, fraud here in Australia is defined as something of value, not as money or equipment. It's something of value. Now, information is of value, personal relationships are of value, access is value, you know, money is value, equipment is value. They're all value. So fraud and insider threat are almost integrated. The insider threat, the insider threat is that deep personality. And therefore, for me, that locks quite nicely into fraud. Fraud is one of the outcomes of an insider threat. Now, if you're talking about sabotage, but that's a complete, that's outside the fraud regime. So insider threat sort of fraud neatly integrates, but then insider threat goes broader because there are things about insider threat that that would not be covered by fraud

because

it's not taking something away from me. It's actually for my own benefit. It's actually destroying something when you talk about sabotage. So I think when you think inside of threat and fraud, fraud, if you really look at that definition that we have, is about value and it's about deception.

Yeah.

And inside of threats about value, and deception, but it's broader than that in terms of what it covers because it does cover broader things than fraud.

So how does, for example, the topic of insider threat awareness, even fraud awareness, sort of support the promotion of ethical behavior within an organization?

I think it comes back to the 4 personalities. If I really recognize this as a human endeavor and not a systems endeavor, it's a human endeavor. Fraud is something that someone deliberately goes to do to deceive you and take away something of value of yours for their own benefit or somebody else's, a third party's benefit. So if you look at it from that perspective, strengthening your understanding and knowledge of insider threat leads naturally to understanding what you should do and how ethics plays a major part in the leadership. If you look at ethical leadership, which everyone talks about, but we really don't have a lot of it. Ethical leadership tends to draw other people to them. And the way I explain that to people is I've got an ethical leader. I will always know that they do the right and ethical thing. So no matter what I do, what problem I've got, if I go to them, I know I'm gonna get a consistent answer. So therefore, I'll trust my leader. And if you're gonna trust your leader, if you can see something going off the rails, you'll go to your leader and say, I think that's going off the rails. And so, uh, I think in the current public service environment, uh, I would not be doing that because I don't think we've got the same ethical leadership inside the public service that we had, say, 20 years ago.

Yes.

And that's where it breaks down. So I think if you wanna talk about ethics and how it works, you build an ethical culture, you build an ethical leadership, it starts to build trust and consistency. And when you know what the other person should be doing, then what occurs is that when they're not doing it, you will then end up with an aberration that becomes really obvious and very, very quickly. So I think from my perspective, I punch that ethics awareness and insider threat awareness together, and you suddenly realize you've got the defense mechanism. Ethical leadership and an ethical culture is the stuff that will really highlight that aberration that comes out of an unethical person.

Yeah. So I suppose the question then is to follow that up is if you have some form of insider threat awareness or fraud awareness, how does it help prevent For example, ethical violations?

Yeah. So that's a really interesting question that if you go to any, I think any government agency and you get an ethics and fraud awareness training, it's as boring as, I hate to say this, batshit. And when people have attempted to spice it up by using, you know, actors, et cetera, et cetera, it doesn't spice it up because it's a boring topic. Because what's in it for me? You talk about it, but it's not walked on the floor. There needs to be more when we talk about ethical training and ethical ethics awareness is the what's in it for me approach to it. And strengthening ethical behavior requires the leadership, comes back to leadership. You know, I worked with a guy here in Canberra about 4 or 5 times. And I knew he would never do anything unethical. Never. He was always consistent about how he behaved. I'd work with him tomorrow and he really had good operating systems and people worked for him happily. And I don't think we ever had a fraud ever in the organization.

Yeah. Yeah. Interesting. Interesting. I changed the subject slightly. And I want to touch on the subject of integrity, which is the third arm of what we're talking about today, which is basically how do insider threats challenge the integrity of an organization?

Yeah, that's if you come back to the, you come back to integrity, meaning the whole is in one piece.

Yes.

If you've got an insider threat, the whole is not one piece. Because what you've got is you've got that little crack in the system that then starts to break down. So an insider threat, insider threat, say an insider threat in terms of, say, like outlawed motorcycle gangs, they tend to place people inside major organizations. And what then happens is the system breaks down. So when someone is trying to conduct an investigation, They will— an insider can blind the integrity of that investigation, blind them to evidence that might be there, provide suggestions that aren't correct, that might send them off in the wrong direction, hide evidence. Or when you're trying to conduct a public procurement, say, they'll be there just twisting the rules enough to break the system. Yeah. And so insider threats really damages the integrity of the organization. And at the same time, they destroyed trust because if you've ever been where something has blown up in the fraud space and people go, who was responsible for that? How did they do it? And who was responsible for oversighting it? And all of a sudden, nobody trusts anybody. And I think that's where an insider can really damage the integrity of an organization and the trustworthiness of it. You think about the best one I've seen lately, and we've been using this as part of our training in fraud control, is the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I got, there's an organization that has an amazing integrity reputation up until recently where one of their staff was providing a whole pile of statistics and analysis to an employee of the National Australia Bank.

Yes. That's pretty well documented.

Yes. Yeah. So that is the classic insider threat. And I think they're doing 2 years now. Yeah, they're doing both. Well, no, hang on. The perpetrator, the leader of it's doing 4, I think, with a 2-year non-parole period. So it comes back to that their damage to the integrity has been massive.

Correct.

And it's the same with any integrity lapse. The insider can actually do a whole pile of damage. And I always doubt sometimes whether we actually got the insider. We only got the schmuck, that was, that got caught. I think there's more people involved in this.

Yeah.

And it's a consistent problem. Now that which leads neatly into my view of prevention, detection, deterrence, and response. If you come back to that, my view about deterrence, prevention and deterrence is actually, and detection is to constantly as agencies look straight ahead, look into things that don't seem right that no one else will touch. So when I was at the Department of Defense, we found about $15 million worth, oh no, $50 million worth of fraud in the first 6 months I was there because it was the only time we'd ever looked for it. What we used to do is wait till someone reported it. Now, if you report fraud, you know, it's never gonna happen. But if you start looking into systems and seeing where things are going wrong, and waste, you tend to find that quicker. So in that respect, I think you have to become a bit of a hunter, which comes neatly back to your conversation around how do you find these things? Well, it's more than monitoring. You've got to start thinking like criminals, essentially.

Very interesting point. So if we try to maintain a sort of a high level of standards of integrity, Is there sort of a correlation between high standards and inverse relation, inverse relationship in terms of potential insider threats? I mean, I'm assuming it does help, but there's no guarantee it will stop everything, correct?

Yeah, it comes back to that ethical leadership. If you maintain, see, there's no point, there is no point saying we've got zero tolerance for fraud and corruption and then do nothing about it. So the first time you get a fraud problem, what you'll do is you'll go, well, I don't really want to send them to jail because that'll be a bit rough. And, or the one I had once was, why are we investigating this? It's only, you know, it's only a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That tends to encourage the bad behavior.

Yes. Correct.

So when you have an organization from a top-down view, from the senior leadership down, view is why we're getting involved in this, that's the end. You might as well not be investigating it. So it comes to that, the leadership has to step up to the plate and say they did it and they're going to jail or they did it and they're getting the sack and there's no conversation been had about that. That's our standard. So setting the standard at the top, there is a correlation between setting the standard and actually living the standard. If you get that right, as I said, I've seen organizations that have set a very high standard, they've lived by that standard. Not only have they prospered as organizations, but they've actually performed very well and had low fraud.

Yeah.

As opposed to organizations that stand up there and say, we have a hot— we maintain a high standard, zero tolerance approach to it. which always makes me laugh and then do absolutely nothing about it.

Yeah.

Absolutely nothing about it. And I know there's one particular agency here in Canberra that told the Senate that they've got zero fraud, but we know they've got thousands of dollars worth of fraud and it's not believable. And quite rightly, the Senate, one of the senators asked them to, well, maybe you should come out and train all of us in how to do fraud control. Because obviously with zero fraud, you're fabulous. I noted the secretary of that department did not take that offer up. So, and I know quite well fraud is rampant inside that particular department because there's no action. So from my perspective, setting the standard is one thing, gotta take the action with

it. So, so key. Yeah, you gotta walk your talk. Yeah. What role does transparency come into play when we're Talking about integrity of organization.

I think transparency plays a really big role in building trust and trust in the organization. Many years ago, I was told we sacked someone for the public service, we just put it in the Gazette and we don't ever talk about it again. And I had a super boss who lovely lady and had sacked a staff member and she sacked the staff member and she was completely transparent about it. Not only that, she sent an email out to everybody saying, this is my decision. This is what, like the 4,000 people in the agency got an email basically saying, this is what happened. This is who got sacked and this is why I sacked her. And I can tell you the behavior inside that agency changed significantly. And the trust in her grew because people said, at least I know what she did.

I could see what happened.

And I think that's where it becomes really difficult where people just not on work on Monday and you don't know why. That doesn't set that deterrent. There's no deterrent. And transparency in both dealing with insider threat, transparency in the way you make your decisions, transparency in when you make a mistake. I can remember in that particular case, everyone said, but if she wins her appeal against you, you'll look foolish. And she said, okay, I'll look foolish.

Yes.

She didn't win her appeal, but the boss basically said, I'm willing to accept being transparent about my mistakes and my behavior and my performance and own it. It comes back to that ethical behavior then builds trust in the leader. And as you build trust in the leader, you want to follow that particular person and therefore, People tend to fall in line. And again, being transparent, the other part to transparency is if everybody's transparent except you, the insider threat, you're gonna get caught really quick too. So this is why that whole process, look, I've made a lot of mistakes in my life. You'll talk to some of my supervisors, I've made some spectacular mistakes, but I've always been open about it. I said, I made this mistake. This is what happened. I took my eye off the ball. Mea culpa. I've never had a boss go, I don't care that you're being honest. I'm gonna sack you anyway. What I found is I've gone, can you please not do that again? Or I've been punished in some other format. But again, it comes down to being open and honest and transparent builds that trust. It's all about trust inside an organization. It's not about making yourself look foolish or look good.

It's about Correct.

They don't trust this guy.

Yeah. So sort of 2 more questions. So how would organizations then basically integrate insider threat awareness, fraud awareness with sort of broader efforts to promote ethics, integrity, and fraud prevention? You know, what choices do they have right now?

I think at the present moment, the current sheep dip is ethical behavior and what fraud is and what corruption is and how it could possibly happen. ethics and fraud awareness is about the fraud triangle, ethics and fraud awareness is about the red flags of fraud. And they're important things, don't get me wrong. But the important part about it is I would set that aside and look at the insider threat from the perspective of my 4 types of people and go, this is the behavior. If you see this behavior in the workplace, it's not ethical. It doesn't build our integrity.

Yeah.

It's not transparent. All those conversations. So when you can talk about ethics, And you can talk about fraud, but what you really need to talk about is the insider threat.

Yeah.

Because it's broader than that. So we do ethics. One of our courses is ethics, fraud awareness, and modern slavery. Now that doesn't sound like it's— they connect, but they really connect because fraudulent behavior generates that modern slavery aspect to organizations and they are quite connected in that respect. It's the same thing that the insider threat and modern slavery is broader than fraud. And I think if we talk about insider threat, we get a broader view of the things that can break down an organization's capability to operate, the things that can see people leave the organization and general trust in the organization. Because if an organization's got a reputation for being a bad player, it's gonna lose business.

Correct.

So I think it's really important to turn the table on ethics and fraud awareness and turn the table and go, let's talk about insider threat and how ethics and fraud awareness and corruption awareness and other elements, occupational health and safety, can protect us from that particular threat. And particularly that stuff about ethical leadership.

Yeah. Interesting. Based on our discussion so far, what do you think are the sort of the key takeaways? So far,

I think the key takeaway is it comes back to this is a human problem, not a systems problem. And it also gives you the takeaway that for me, ethical leadership is the bit that's gonna protect you most from insider threat because the ethical leader will highlight where there's a dark spot in your organization. And I've worked with some really good leaders, good ethical leaders, and I've worked with some absolutely horrible unethical leaders. And the high-performing agencies I've worked with have always had a very strong ethical leader and they tend to not have the insider threats. They're very alert to making sure people behave in a particularly ethical manner. And I think that's the key takeaway for me at the end is ethical leadership.

So we've reached the end of our discussion, but before we sort of say goodbye, I wanted you to touch base a course that, you know, that we're promoting called Ethics and Fraud Awareness Training. Can you go into a little bit details of what it is?

The Ethics and Fraud Awareness Training that we're delivering has got some— obviously got the elements I've talked about today. And we look very, very closely at those 4 criteria evidence. So it's got the basic— pardon me, the basics of ethics and fraud awareness that you normally find, but we've added the 4 players into that particular program. And we're looking at it from the human perspective. And we've got a really good case there, the Corsa case, where case study that comes with the training where you get to actually see how that insider completely brought down a major retailer here in Australia. Absolutely terrible case. But again, the course follows, covers off on ethics, ethical leadership, fraud awareness and red flags of fraud. We've also got corruption in there. Corruption sort of is like the sad cousin of fraud.

Yes.

But it's in there and we look at those red flags and then we talk about how to set up procurement systems to actually start to deter some of that fraudulent behavior, especially when it comes to expenditure and setting up contracts. And then finally, that causes study, which I found fascinating going through, is there as well. Now we've got some additional elements there that we can add, which is the modern slavery, and we are going to look at adding the insider threat, I think, now to that particular course for you because we're starting to see that more and more the problem rather than, say, an element of the problem.

Cool. Cool. Cool. So you're gonna be able to find that course on the Australian Institute of Insider Threat. So, so that'll be good. Last but not least there, Michael, for those viewers that want to reach out to you, what's the best way?

The best way to get hold of me is if you go to our website, www.afca.com.au. Or if you wanna personally contact me, it's michael.callan@afca.edu.au. Either way, I've got some lovely people that you can get through to me on. And if you wanna have a chat, we've got a range of courses and we're always building courses as you know, Boaz, we're constantly on the move. Yes. So if you wanna get in contact, please use those 2 lines. And if you're unable to, I'm sure that Boaz would probably direct you in the right direction as well.

Yeah, I'll have that information on the site. So, you know, if they don't have it, they can easily find it. Michael, thanks again. I'm so glad that you managed to join us on the part of the Global Insider Trader Awareness Month and look forward to chatting with you soon.

Yeah, we'll see you next month. Hey, thank you very much and have a lovely month. As well, Boaz, thanks very much. Cheers.

Thanks, Michael. Cheers. Bye.