Fraud Examiners

Please Respond

 

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Fraud Examiners
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

#1

Korinne Robertson

Fraud examiners should approach investigations into fraud matters from two different perspectives. The first is by seeking to prove that fraud has occurred. Secondly, by seeking to prove that fraud has not occurred.

Evidence usually is considered to be more reliable and persuasive than witness statements. Evidence must be relevant and must contain admissible direct or circumstantial evidence of the facts in issues.

The four types of evidence include demonstrative, real, testimonial, and documentary. Demonstrative is evidence that demonstrated the testimony given by a witness. Real is defined as a thing that was present or used in the case being presented in court. Testimonial evidence is viewed by the court to be the simplest type of evidence. And Documentary evidence is most often considered real evidence.

(n.d.). Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. https://www.acfe.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Products/Books_and_Manuals/2014%20Sample%20Chapter_Planning%20and%20Conducting%20a%20Fraud%20Examination.pdf

The basics of evidence for fraud and corruption investigators. (n.d.). Guide to Combating Corruption & Fraud in Development Projects. https://guide.iacrc.org/the-basics-of-evidence-for-fraud-and-corruption-investigators/#:~:text=Be%20relevant%2C%20of%20course%3B,Be%20%E2%80%9Cauthenticated.%E2%80%9D

Looking at the 4 types of evidence. (2020, February 26). Sivin, Miller & Roche LLP Attorneys at Law. https://www.sivinandmiller.com/blog/2018/07/looking-at-the-4-types-of-evidence/

 

#2
When it comes to the challenges for an investigator it comes to the proving that someone has committed fraud. This would come to having the prover evidence. The evidence that would stand within the court of law has be brought to primarily two types being that of direct and circumstantial. But when it comes to what constitutes for evidence in a trail it comes to the testimony which is the oral statements made by the witnesses, real evidence which is the physical objects such as documents. And then there is the demonstrative which would be items that are incorporated to show a point. In terms of direct and circumstantial evidence. A direct testimony would be something such as an eyewitness or a confession by the fraudster. When it comes to circumstantial it would be that evidence is working to prove or disprove some form of fact. In this way we would look to find mean within the type of evidence that is provided.

Reference”

Kranacher, J. M., & Riley, R. (2019). Forensic accounting and fraud examination (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons. ISBN-13: 9781119494331

Kranacher, J. M., & Riley, R. (2019). Forensic accounting and fraud examination (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons.

 

#3

Question: Where might fraud examiners and forensic accountants find data during a fraud investigation? Identify an ethical conundrum that may arise in the collection of data. In your responses, identify how you would respond to the ethical conundrum presented by your classmate.

Response

Hello professor and classmates, when it comes to finding data during a fraud investigation, I believe that fraud examiners and forensic accountants can find data in the following places: mail, newspapers, public records, documents, and computer files. I would say that an ethical conundrum would be trying to remain neutral and unbiased because there will always be people trying to get with their side and if that happens the data collected will be corrupt. It would be in the best interest to be unbiased and neutral as the data would be from any side without having to take a specific side, it would then be accepted, and we would move on to the next step when doing a fraud investigation.

Reference

http://www.njhealthmatters.org/content/sites/njhc/Ethical_Considerations_in_Data_Collection.pdf

 

ORDER NOW »»

and taste our undisputed quality.