Ready to run background checks the modern way?
Checkr surveyed 3,000 managers who have been involved in the hiring process over the past 12 months to better understand how AI, identity fraud, and candidate deception are impacting today’s hiring landscape. As fraud tactics become more sophisticated, employers are reevaluating their processes, investing in better safeguards, and working to balance speed, compliance, and authenticity in a rapidly evolving hiring environment.
Introduction
Hiring has always involved some degree of trust—and some risk of deception. But in 2025, the scale and sophistication of that risk has changed dramatically. New tools powered by artificial intelligence make it easy for job seekers to fabricate résumés, outsource interviews, impersonate others, or even use deepfakes to bypass screening.
These tools are now widely accessible so even candidates with limited technical knowledge can utilize them during the job search.
Meanwhile, HR teams are asked to move quickly. They’re tasked with filling roles in competitive markets while also protecting their companies from liability and reputational damage. This tension between speed and scrutiny creates the perfect environment for fraud to slip through the cracks.
Hiring professionals are being forced to confront a difficult truth: Many of the traditional indicators of qualification—professional polish, articulate answers, impressive portfolios—may no longer be reliable signs of authenticity. As AI becomes more embedded in both job-seeking and hiring processes, organizations must rethink how they assess trust, verify identity, and protect their workforce and proprietary data.
This report is divided into four sections, each focused on a core area of concern: The role of AI in candidate deception, real-world experiences with fraud, organizational responses, and the financial consequences of hiring fraud. Each section concludes with a summary of actionable insights for employers looking to strengthen their hiring infrastructure and reduce their exposure to fraud risk.
Now, let’s get into the key findings.
Summary of key findings
- 59% of managers say they’ve suspected a candidate of using AI tools—such as resumes, interviews, or communications—to misrepresent themselves during the hiring process.
- 62% agree that job seekers are now better at faking their identities with AI than hiring teams are at detecting them.
- 31% have interviewed a candidate who was later revealed to be using a fake identity, while 35% say someone other than the listed applicant has participated in a virtual interview.
- 60% of managers say they’ve uncovered a candidate who misrepresented their experience or qualifications; another 13% suspected deception but couldn’t prove it.
- 70% believe hiring fraud is an underestimated financial risk that deserves more attention from company leadership.
- 23% report losses of more than $50,000 in the past year due to hiring or identity fraud, and 10% say losses exceeded $100,000.
- 63% say their organization has updated hiring protocols in the past year specifically to combat AI or identity fraud threats.
- 65% of HR teams have received formal training to identify red flags and spot AI-driven fraud tactics during the hiring process.
- Only 19% of managers are extremely confident their current hiring process would catch a fraudulent applicant; the majority express only moderate or low confidence.
- When asked where they would invest to reduce fraud, 36% chose in-person verification, 31% prioritized AI fraud detection software, and 24% opted for better background checks—highlighting a need for multi-layered defenses.
AI’s role in candidate deception and identity fraud
For many managers, artificial intelligence has introduced more ambiguity than clarity. When asked whether AI has made it harder to trust what they see and hear during virtual interviews, more than half (51%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Only 27% disagreed, while the rest were undecided.
And that mistrust isn’t just hypothetical—59% of those surveyed said they’ve personally suspected a candidate of using AI to misrepresent themselves during some stage of the hiring process, whether through falsified documents, AI-assisted interviews, or misleading communications.
When pressed to define the line between harmless assistance and disqualifying deception, respondents pointed to several clear thresholds. The most concerning was the use of AI to generate fake work samples or portfolios, closely followed by impersonating someone else through synthetic voice, video, or ID documentation. Many also cited AI-generated answers during live or pre-recorded interviews as a top reason for disqualification. The underlying message: Automation in job-seeking isn’t inherently unethical—but using AI to obscure or fabricate identity is a clear red flag.
That concern is only magnified by the belief that fraudsters are staying a step ahead. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of hiring professionals believe job seekers are now better at faking their identities with the help of AI than HR teams are at detecting those deceptions. Only 13% disagreed with that statement. The specific tactics causing the most worry include chatbots posing as real candidates, deepfake video interviews, and AI-generated résumés and cover letters—each of which has become increasingly accessible over the past year.
Who is winning the AI fraud race—job seekers or employers?
*Data from Checkr proprietary survey of 3,000 American managers
AI has created a new layer of complexity in hiring, but it also offers a roadmap for adaptation. Employers must evolve their screening processes to account for AI-generated content and identity manipulation.
That means reevaluating interview formats, investing in verification tools, and creating clear internal definitions of acceptable vs. disqualifying AI use. Establishing ethical AI guidelines for candidates—and incorporating proactive detection measures—will be critical for maintaining integrity in virtual hiring environments.
Beyond theoretical concerns, many managers report that they’ve already encountered real cases of deception in the field. Nearly one in three (31%) say they’ve personally interviewed a candidate who turned out to be using a fake identity. Another 35% have confirmed that someone other than the listed applicant participated in a virtual interview—a statistic that underscores the challenges of remote hiring environments and limited face-to-face verification.
Instances of résumé or experience misrepresentation are even more common. Sixty percent of respondents said they’ve caught candidates lying about their qualifications or backgrounds, while another 13% suspected dishonesty but weren’t able to confirm it. These moments create obvious risks—not just to team productivity, but to workplace safety, data integrity, and brand reputation.
Interestingly, the erosion of trust isn’t limited to candidates. A quarter of respondents (26%) said they believe their own company has posted fake job listings at some point—whether to gauge market interest, project rapid growth, or build up a talent pipeline. While not inherently unethical, these practices contribute to a broader environment of mutual suspicion.
When asked what concerns them most about hiring-related identity fraud, the leading answer was clear: bringing on someone who poses a compliance or security risk. Others highlighted the wasted time and resources spent vetting fraudulent candidates, while some pointed to the reputational damage of onboarding someone who performs poorly or wasn’t qualified in the first place. Only 5% of respondents said they had no concerns about identity fraud during the hiring process.
What concerns managers most about identity fraud in hiring?
*Data from Checkr proprietary survey of 3,000 American managers
Fraud detection starts with acknowledging the problem. Employers should conduct regular audits of their own hiring practices—including the authenticity of job listings—and ensure that candidate vetting includes robust identity and credential verification steps.
Encouraging teams to share fraud incidents internally (even anecdotal ones) can build collective awareness and sharpen instincts. Companies should also consider shifting from reactive fraud detection to proactive screening strategies that prioritize early risk signals.
How HR teams are fighting back to combat fraud
Despite the challenges, many HR teams are taking active steps to defend against AI-enhanced fraud and identity deception. More than six in ten managers (63%) said their company has updated hiring protocols within the past year specifically to address risks related to AI or fake identities. These adjustments vary by company size and industry, but the trend line is clear: HR teams are evolving quickly.
When asked how their organization currently approaches hiring fraud, nearly half of all respondents (47%) said they’ve built strong processes to reduce risk. Only 18% said it’s not currently a concern, while 15% acknowledged that fraud is happening—but admitted they don’t yet have a solution.
The toolkit being deployed is varied. Government-issued ID checks are the most common, used by 58% of respondents, followed by third-party background checks (52%), real-time video interviews (55%), and reference verifications (46%). A growing number of HR teams—38%—are now leveraging AI fraud detection software, while 25% are using biometric or facial verification. Still, 3% admitted they use none of these measures at all.
One encouraging sign is the rise of internal training. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of managers say their HR teams have received formal instruction on how to detect red flags and identify possible AI deceptions.
But confidence in these systems remains cautious. Only 19% of respondents said they are “extremely confident” that their current hiring process could catch a fraudulent applicant. Another 36% said they were “very confident,” while 37% were only “somewhat confident.” The rest either lacked confidence or had no confidence at all.
How confident are managers in spotting identify fraud while hiring?
*Data from Checkr proprietary survey of 3,000 American managers
Organizations must treat hiring fraud prevention as an evolving discipline—one that requires continuous investment in tools, training, and talent. Employers should standardize anti-fraud measures across all departments and hiring levels, ensuring that each candidate undergoes a consistent and thorough screening process.
Incorporating identity verification into early-stage workflows (such as applicant tracking or scheduling software) can also reduce the risk of deception before interviews even begin. Above all, building institutional confidence requires aligning people, policies, and technology toward a common fraud-prevention strategy.
The financial fallout of hiring fraud
Beyond operational risk, hiring fraud carries a significant financial burden. Half of all managers surveyed said they’ve seen fraudulent hires cost their company time, money, or productivity on multiple occasions. Only 29% disagreed with that statement, and the rest remained neutral.
These losses aren’t just anecdotal. Nearly one in four respondents (23%) estimate their company lost more than $50,000 to hiring fraud in the past year. Another 18% believe the cost ranged between $10,000 and $50,000, while 10% reported losses exceeding $100,000. The actual costs are likely even higher when factoring in lost productivity, delayed projects, and the cost of rehiring.
There’s also growing recognition that hiring fraud is a financial risk on par with more traditionally recognized threats like compliance violations or employee turnover. Seventy percent of managers said they believe hiring fraud is an underestimated financial risk that deserves more attention from company leadership.
Is hiring fraud an underestimated financial risk for management?
*Data from Checkr proprietary survey of 3,000 American managers
Nearly one in three respondents (29%) said their company had experienced delayed projects, missed revenue targets, or compliance issues as a direct result of fraudulent hires in the past 12 months. That number may seem small—but it reflects hundreds of companies dealing with measurable business impact from hiring fraud.
When asked where they would invest to reduce risk, managers were nearly evenly split: 36% said they’d invest in more in-person verification steps, 31% prioritized AI fraud detection software, and 24% wanted stronger background checks. Only 5% said they would not invest more at all.
Where are managers investing most to reduce hiring fraud?
*Data from Checkr proprietary survey of 3,000 American managers
Hiring fraud should be treated as a business risk—not just an HR inconvenience. Employers need to track fraud-related incidents and costs, build ROI models for fraud prevention tools, and prioritize cross-functional collaboration between HR, legal, compliance, and finance teams.
Decision-makers should approach fraud prevention with the same rigor as other risk mitigation efforts—allocating dedicated budgets, assigning ownership, and evaluating outcomes over time. In today’s competitive hiring landscape, the cost of a single bad hire can outweigh the cost of proactive fraud prevention many times over.
Looking ahead
Hiring fraud is now a widespread and growing risk across the American workforce. The rise of AI tools has supercharged the ability of candidates to falsify identities, misrepresent their experience, and sidestep traditional safeguards.
For managers and HR leaders, the result is a daily balancing act between trust, efficiency, and risk mitigation.
The good news is that many companies are fighting back. Updated protocols, better technology, formal training, and a growing awareness of the issue are helping organizations stay ahead of the curve.
But there’s still work to be done—especially in building processes that go beyond detection and create trust across the entire hiring journey.
As we move forward, companies will need to continue investing in tools, training, and transparency to protect their teams and reputations. The future of hiring will depend not just on who a candidate appears to be—but on the confidence hiring teams have in verifying their authenticity from the start.
Methodology
As we move forward, companies will need to continue investing in tools, training, and transparency to protect their teams and reputations. The future of hiring will depend not just on who a candidate appears to be—but on the confidence hiring teams have in verifying their authenticity from the start.
Disclaimer
The resources and information provided here are for educational and informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Always consult your own counsel for up-to-date legal advice and guidance related to your practices, needs, and compliance with applicable laws.
