Читать книгу Fraud Examination Casebook with Documents - Beecken William H. - Страница 5

Professors of graduate and undergraduate Fraud Examination courses often instruct students from a survey‐level textbook and, if available, supplement their course with guest lecturers who work in the field. Those new to Fraud Examination often simply read a Fraud Examination textbook, specialized book dealing with some aspect of fraud, or study for the CFE Exam. Students usually complete a typical Fraud Examination course with general knowledge of complex human behaviors like greed and deception, a broad understanding of what fraud is and how fraud is committed, prevented, and resolved. However, they gain little or no hands‐on experience using life‐like accounting documents, databases, or witness interviews. They also do not learn how to apply Fraud Examination techniques like horizontal, vertical, and ratio analysis. Learning Fraud Examination theory is not enough to do the job effectively; “knowing” is different from “applying.”

This casebook was developed with a hands‐on concept similar to that used to train federal special agents. It provides students and those new to Fraud Examination with cases based on real Fraud Examinations. The exercises take them from predication (e.g., receipt of allegations given in a case scenario) through producing a written report, schedules, and court‐room ready audio‐visuals, which are ready for examination and cross‐examination by attorneys in depositions, hearings, or trials. It gives the students and those new to Fraud Examination cradle‐to‐grave experience, painstakingly spreading and analyzing accounting documentation and related data, preparing audio‐visuals to simplify the complex, and preparing a report that adequately discusses the Fraud Examination, schedules, and audio‐visuals to an uninformed reader (e.g., an attorney). Students and those new to Fraud Examination learn such Fraud Examination techniques as horizontal and vertical analysis, examining the front and back of canceled checks, decoding debit card transactions, vouching to supporting documents, examining edits to digital information, using simple data analytics, and preparation of audio‐visuals to simplify the complex. As with real Fraud Examinations, the students and those new to Fraud Examination must think outside of the box and connect the dots, often reading and rereading the scenario and examining and reexamining the accounting documents and witness interviews. Like in real life, they do not receive all of the information they would like to have.

The information they need is present in the case, but they have to dig deeply to find it all. In those courses where the professor uses a mock fraud trial as an additional teaching tool, a prosecutor and defense attorney can use the finished product to painfully examine and cross‐examine students on the results of their completion of these exercises (Fraud Examination reports, schedules, and audiovisuals).

This work is the outgrowth of three earlier versions of the first two fraud cases, which were used to augment Fraud Examination courses at a state university (on‐the‐ground) and private university (online). Starting with the first Fraud Examination course students in the on‐the‐ground course were required to prepare reports, schedules, and audiovisuals and then meet in groups to prepare for the final examination: a mock fraud trial before a real judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney. During the pre‐trial period, teams were selected for the defense and prosecution attorneys, and team reports, schedules, and audiovisuals were exchanged under discovery. Attorneys taught a session in how to testify as an expert witness and films were shown on the tips, tricks, and traps of testifying. During cross‐examination, students quickly found out how inadequate work, misspoken words, and/or fear of the unknown impacted the effectiveness of their testimony on the results of their Fraud Examinations. Those teams that prepared most often did the best.

Based on prior experience, the first two cases are the most that should be used to supplement an undergraduate Fraud Examination course. It takes four to eight hours for each assignment to individually complete with worksheets and another eight to ten hours for teams to prepare reports, schedules, and audiovisuals. Considering the more intense writing requirements for graduate programs, graduate Fraud Examination students can and should work all five cases. Those new to Fraud Examination may take more or less hours depending on their experience level. Expect the first set of reports, schedules, and audiovisuals (fraud case 1) to be substandard. However, those that follow review comments often provide much improved products with the second set of reports, schedules, and audiovisuals (fraud case 2). The forensic data analytics case (case 4) is provided so business schools can introduce students to forensic data analytics. The “how‐to” session provides an overview of Excel Pivot. Finally, the conspiracy/loan fraud case was added to bring the serial cases full circle and emphasize that frauds may not be committed alone.

Writing this book came out of a need to provide students with a working knowledge of simple fraud cases and an avenue to quickly become Fraud Examiners. From past experience, graduates must first work as auditors, claims adjusters, forensic accountants, investigators, and so forth before getting an opportunity to enter the field. To get them entry‐level positions right out of college required a large number of volunteers: guest lecturers, employers with Fraud Examination internships, and attorneys and CFEs willing to spend hours holding a mock fraud trial where students would testify as expert witnesses.

The following spoke about their real‐world experience: Lew Brendle, J.D., Laurie Dyke, CFE CPA, Karen Fortune, CFE CPA, James F. Hart, CPA/ABV, CFE, Scott Hilsen, J.D, CFE, Tim Huhn, CFE, Phil Hurd, CISSP CIA, Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney (White Collar Crime) John Melvin, J.D., David Sawyer, CFE, CPA, Special Agent Gary Sherrill, CFE, and Thomas Taylor, CFE. The Cobb County District Attorney's Office, Georgia Institute of Technology, and IAG Forensics & Valuation provided Fraud Examination internships. The following CFEs devoted days getting students prepared to testify as expert witnesses: Laurie Dyke, CFE CPA, Karen Fortune, CFE CPA, Luke Thomas, CFE CPA, and many of their junior associates with IAG Forensics & Valuation. The following attorneys and magistrates participated as judges and attorneys at the annual mock fraud trials: John Capo, J.D., Scott Poole, J.D., and Chief Judge Allen Wigington (Pickens County), Victor Hartman, J.D., CFE, CPA (former FBI District Counsel), and District Attorney Victor Reynolds, J.D., Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney (White Collar Crime) John Melvin, J.D., Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney (Major Litigation) Michael Carlson, J.D., and Assistant District Attorney Jason Marbutt, J.D. (Cobb County). In addition, thanks to the academic assistance provided by Donald Ariail, Ph.D., CFE, CPA and Sridhar Ramamoorti, Ph.D., CFE, CPA, CIA.

Finally, Clark and I want to thank Jeanne, our mother and wife, respectively. She has had to persevere through countless hours of solitary living while we wrote this casebook. Without her love and understanding, this casebook would not have been written.