EXAM 3 Flashcards
(127 cards)
Ch 9 - Evidence-Based Fraud Examinations
The Fraud Triangle and the Courts
The Fraud Triangle and the Courts
As John Gill noted, the antifraud professional needs to
“st___ to the f___s when you t____y,” which are provided by the t____e of fr___ a___.
“stick to the facts when you testify,” which are provided by the triangle of fraud action.
The Fraud Triangle and the Courts
From this structure the professional can identify evidence that supports 1) hy_____s (a.k.a. f____ th___s) and answer the important questions of 2) “w__, w___, w___, w___, and h__” (w__ had a___s, h__ was it co___d and c___d, w___ did the m__y go, etc.).
This approach 3) d__ n__ require that the professional answer the question of 4) “w__” that are associated with 5) p____e and ra____n
1) hypotheses (a.k.a. fraud theories) 2) “who, what, when, where, and how” (who had access, how was it committed and concealed, where did the money go, etc.)
3) does not
4) “why”
5) pressure and rationalization
The Fraud Triangle and the Courts
The primary lesson: 1) ___e that your w___ is g____d in the evidence. This means that reported 1.1( fi____s are supported by f___, d___, or in____n that you in___ v____y to the e___t possible.
This approach ensures 2) r____t, re__e c___ns that can be presented with a re__e degree of scientific certainty.
Without the 3) p___r c___ls and e___e (e.g., psychologist), professionals should 4) a___ co___g on m____s associated with the perpetrators 5) p____e or r____n.
1) Ensure that your work is grounded in the evidence
1.1) findings are supported by facts, data, or information that you independently verify to the extent possible
2) relevant, reliable conclusions
3) proper credentials and experience
4) avoid commenting on motives
5) pressure or rationalization.
Module 1—Fraud Examinations: Who, What, Where, When, How,
and Why: Evidence-Based Examinations
Evidence-Based Examinations
To complete an examination, the fraud examiner or forensic accountant needs to answer the essential questions of 1) w__, w__, w___, w___, h___, and w___—with ev____e.
1) who, what, where, when, how, and why—with evidence.
Evidence-Based Examinations
In addition, the answers need to be woven into a 1) co___t s___y.
2) C___l t___g and a____l r___g suggest that the fraud examiner or forensic accountant will have to make some 3) in___al co___ns to pull the various pieces of evidence and the answers to those questions into a compelling case
1) coherent story
2) Critical thinking and analytical reasoning
3) intellectual connections
Evidence-Based Examinations
However, evidence-based decision making suggests that examiners need to 1) g___d their st___e in the evidence.
A 2) st___e gr___d in the evidence is much more convincing to 3) pr___s, at___s, j___s, and j__s.
1) ground their storyline
2) storyline grounded
3) prosecutors, attorneys, judges, and juries.
The Hypothesis-Evidence Matrix
In_____e e___e is a f___t of li__ and an o__-g___ ch__e to examiners.
Incomplete evidence is a fact of life and an on-going challenge to examiners.
The Hypothesis-Evidence Matrix
How does the fraud examiner deal with situations where the evidence is less than perfect?
The answer is that fraud and forensic professionals always face the prospect of less-than-perfect evidence, and they address 1) p___l ev____y sh___gs or h___s in the 1.1) st____e through their c____on of the al____e h____es (al___e fr__ th__s).
In Chapter 1, this approach is referred to as the analysis of competing hypotheses and the specific tool is the 2) Hy___s-Ev__e M__x.
1) potential evidentiary shortcomings or holes
1.1) storyline through their consideration of the alternative hypotheses (alternative fraud theories)
2) Hypothesis-Evidence Matrix.
The Hypothesis-Evidence Matrix
Professionals in this field need to understand that 1) n__ o__ is b__r at generating 2) al___ve t___es of the case than opposing 3) at____s.
1) no one is better
2) alternative theories
3) attorneys.
Define Predication
the totality of 1) ci___ces that would lead a reasonable, 2) pr___y trained, and pr__t in____al to believe that a fraud has 3) o__d, is oc___g, or is a___t to o___r
1) circumstances
2) professionally trained, and prudent individual
3) occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur
Predication
Essentially, predication is the 1) st____g p___t for a f___al fr__d ex___on.
And predication is needed 2) p__r to investigation
1) starting point for a formal fraud examination
2) prior
Predication
S____n in the a___e of any corroborating circumstantial e___e is n__ a su___nt b__s for conducting a fr___ ex___on
Suspicion in the absence of any corroborating circumstantial evidence is not a sufficient basis for conducting a fraud examination
Predication
Typically, a few 1) r__ fl__s are n__ in themselves su___t as a b___s for a fraud examination. Especially when dealing with 2) fi___l st__nt fraud, where a 3) m___ty threshold is required, red flags require additional 4) a__t w__k.
A major obstacle is that many red flags have 5) r__le e__ns and d__ n___ result in the dis___y of a___t mis____n, cor___n, or at__ed fraudulent financial reporting.
1) red flags are not in themselves sufficient as a basis
2) financial statement
3) materiality
4) audit work
5) reasonable explanations and do not result in the discovery of asset misappropriation, corruption, or attempted
The Fraud Triangle: Opportunity, Perceived Pressure, and
Rationalization
The Fraud Triangle: Opportunity, Perceived Pressure, and
Rationalization
The profile of the typical fraudster is basically that of the 1) av___e c___n.
Notwithstanding predatory fraudsters, most are not habitual criminals, and very few have any criminal history.
1) average citizen.
The Fraud Triangle: Opportunity, Perceived Pressure, and
Rationalization
Further, common fraud perpetrators often are well-educated and respected members of their community, regularly attend community events, are often married, and have children.
Thus, the critical question remains: what causes good people to turn bad
The Fraud Triangle: Opportunity, Perceived Pressure, and
Rationalization
Three characteristics are needed to enable fraud: (The Fraud Triangle)
o O____ity
o Pe____ p___e
o Ra____n
o Opportunity
o Perceived pressure
o Rationalization
The Fraud Triangle: Opportunity, Perceived Pressure, and Rationalization
Types of Evidence
* Evidence of fi____l pr____s
- Evidence of v__s or si__r pr__ms
- Evidence of or___nal
pr___e to a___ve fi___al go__s - Evidence of the ch___e of getting __y with the f__d
- Evidence of ex___e e__
- Evidence of fa__y or p__r pr___e
- Evidence of financial pressures
- Evidence of vices or similar problems
- Evidence of organizational
pressure to achieve financial goals - Evidence of the challenge of getting away with the fraud
- Evidence of excessive ego
- Evidence of family or peer pressure
Evidence of financial pressures
-li___g b___d one’s m___
-g___d su___al d___t
-a p___r cr___t r___g
-living beyond one’s means
-greed substantial debt
-a poor credit rating
Evidence of vices or similar problems
-ga___g
-dr___s
-a___ry
-gambling
-drugs
-adultery
Evidence of organizational pressure to achieve financial goals
-bu___t pr___re
-b___s op____ties
-ma___g st___k pr__e
-budget pressure
-bonus opportunities
-maintaining stock price