Category Archives: Fraud Reporting

Tailoring Difficult Conversations

We CFE’s and forensic accountants, like other investigative professionals, are often called upon to be the bearers of bad news; it just goes with the territory.  CFE’s and forensic accountants are somewhat unique, however, in that, since fraud is ubiquitous, we’re called upon to communicate negative messages to such a diverse range of client types; today the chairman of an audit committee, tomorrow a corporate counsel, the day after that an estranged wife whose spouse has run off after looting the family business.

If there is anything worse than getting bad news, it may be delivering it. No one relishes the awkward, difficult, anxiety-producing exercise of relaying messages that may hurt, humiliate, or upset someone with whom the deliverer has a professional relationship. And, what’s more,  it often proves a thankless task. This was recognized in a Greek proverb almost 2,500 years ago, “Nobody loves the messenger who brings bad news.”

Physicians, who are sometimes required to deliver worse news than most CFE’s ever will, often engage in many hours of classwork and practical experience studying and role-playing how to have difficult conversations with patients and their families They know that the message itself, may be devastating but how they deliver it can help the patient and his or her family begin to process even the most painful facts.   CFE’s are in the fortunate position of typically not having to deliver news that is quite so shattering.  Nevertheless, there is no question that certain investigative results can be extremely difficult to convey and to receive.  The ACFE tells us that learning how to prepare for and deliver such messages can create not only a a better investigator but facilitate a better investigative outcome.

Preparation to deliver difficult investigative results should begin well in advance, even before there is such a result to deliver. If the first time an investigator has a genuine interaction with the client is to confirm the existence of a fraud, that fact in itself constitutes a problem.  On the other hand, if the investigator has invested time in building a relationship before that difficult meeting takes place, the intent and motivations of both parties to the interaction are much better mutually understood. Continuous communication via weekly updates to clients from the moment irregularities are noted by examination is vital.

However, despite best efforts in building relationships and staying in regular contact with clients, some meetings will involve conveying difficult news. In those cases, preparation is critical to accomplishing objectives while dealing with any resultant fallout.  In such cases, the ACFE recommends focusing on investigative process as well as on content. Process is professionally performing the work, self-preparation for delivering the message, explaining the conclusions in meaningful and realistic ways, and for anticipating the consequences and possible response of the person receiving the message. Content is having the right data and valid conclusions so  the message is correct and complete.

Self-preparation involves considering the type of person who is receiving the difficult message and in determining the best approach for communicating it. Some people want to hear the bottom line first and the supporting information after that; others want to see a methodical building of the case item by item, with the conclusion at the end. Some are best appealed to via logic; others need a more empathetic delivery. Discussions guided by the appropriate approach are more likely to be productive. Put as much effort as possible into getting to know your client since personality tends to drive how he or she wants to receive information, interact with others, and, in turn, values things and people. When there is critical investigative information that has to be understood and accepted, seasoned examiners consider delivery tailored specifically to the client to be paramount.

Once the ground work has been laid, it’s time to have the discussion. It’s important, regarding the identified fraud, to remember to …

–Seek opportunities to balance the discussion by recognizing the client’s processes that are working well as well as those that have apparently failed;

–Offer to help or ask how you can help to address the specific issues raised in the discussion;

–Make it clear that you understand the client’s challenges. Be precise and factual in describing the causes of the identified irregularity;

–Maintain open body language. Avoid crossing your arms, don’t place your hands over your mouth or on your face, and keep your palms facing each other or slightly upwards instead of downwards. Don’t lean forward as this appears extra aggressive. Breathe deeply and evenly. If possible, mimic the body language of the message recipient, if the recipient is remaining calm. If the recipient begins to show signs of defensiveness or strong aggression, and your efforts to calm  the situation are not successful, you might suggest a follow-up meeting after both of you have digested what was said and to consider mutually acceptable options to move forward.

–Present the bottom-line message three times in different ways so your listener has time to absorb it.

–Let the client vent if he or she wishes. The ACFE warns against a tendency to interrupt the client’s remarks of explanation or sometimes of denial; “we don’t hire people who would do something like that!” Allowing the client time to vent frees him or her to get down to business moving afterward.

–Focus on problems with the process as well as on the actions of the suspect(s) to build context for the fraud scenario.

–Always demonstrate empathy. Take time to think about what’s going through your hearer’s mind and help him or her think through the alleged scenario and how it occurred, what’s going to happen next with the investigation, and how the range of issues raised by the investigation might be resolved.

Delivering difficult information is a minefield, and there are ample opportunities to take a wrong step and see explosive results. Emotional intelligence, understanding how to read people and relate to them, is vital in delivering difficult messages effectively. This is not an innate trait for many people, and it is a difficult one to learn, as are many of the other so-called soft skills. Yet they can be critical to the successful practice of fraud examination. Examiners rarely  get in trouble over their technical skills because such skills are generally easier for them to master.  Examiners tend to get in trouble over insufficient soft skills. College degrees and professional certifications are all aimed at the technical skills. Sadly, very little is done on the front end to help examiners with the equally critical soft skills which only arise after the experience of actual practice.  For that reason, watching a mentor deliver difficult messages or deal with emotional people is also an effective way to absorb good practices. ACFE training utilizes the role-playing of potentially troublesome presentations to a friendly group (say, the investigative staff) as another way to exercise one’s skills.

Delivering bad news is largely a matter of practice and experience, and it’s not something CFEs and forensic accountants have the choice to avoid. At the end of the day, examiners need to deliver our news verbally and in writing and to facilitate our clients understanding of it. The underlying objective is to ensure that the fact of the alleged fraud is adequately identified, reported and addressed, and that the associated risk is understood and effectively mitigated.

People, People & People

Our Chapter’s Vice-President Rumbi Petrolozzi’s comment in her last blog post to the effect that one of the most challenging tasks for the forensic accountant or auditor working proactively is defining the most effective and efficient scope of work for a risk-based assurance project. Because resources are always scarce, assurance professionals need to make sure they can meet both quality and scheduling requirements whilst staying within our fixed resource and cost constraints.

An essential step in defining the scope of a project is identifying the critical risks to review and the controls required to manage those risks. An efficient scope focuses on the subset of controls (i.e., the key controls) necessary to provide assurance. Performing tests of controls that are not critical is not efficient. Similarly, failing to test controls that could be the source of major fraud vulnerabilities leads to an ineffective audit.  As Rumbi points out, and too often overlooked, the root cause of most risk and control failures is people. After all, outstanding people are required to make an organization successful, and failing to hire, retain, and train a competent team of employees inevitably leads to business failure.

In an interview, a few decades ago, one of America’s most famous business leaders was asked what his greatest challenges were in turning one of his new companies around from failure to success. He is said to have responded that his three greatest challenges were “people, people, and people.” Certainly, when assurance professionals or management analyze the reasons for data breaches and control failures, people are generally found to be the root cause. For example, weaknesses may include (echoing Rumbi):

Insufficiently trained personnel to perform the work. A common material weakness in compliance with internal control over financial reporting requirements is a lack of experienced financial reporting personnel within a company. In more traditional anti-fraud process reviews, examiners often find that control weaknesses arise because individuals don’t understand the tasks they have to perform.

Insufficient numbers to perform the work. When CPAs find that important reconciliations are not performed timely, inventories are not counted, a backlog in transaction processing exists, or agreed-upon corrective actions to address prior audit findings aren’t completed, managers frequently offer the excuse that their area is understaffed.

Poor management and leadership. Fraud examiners find again and again, that micromanagers and dictators can destroy a solid finance function. At the other end of the spectrum, the absence of leadership, motivation, and communication can cause whole teams to flounder. Both situations generally lead to a failure to perform key controls consistently. For example, poor managers have difficulty retaining experienced professionals to perform account reconciliations on time and with acceptable levels of quality leading directly to an enhanced level of vulnerability to numerous fraud scenarios.

Ineffective human resource practices. In some cases, management may choose to accept a certain level of inefficiency and retain individuals who are not performing up to par. For instance, in an example cited by one of our ACFE training event speakers last year, the financial analysis group of a U.S. manufacturing company was failing to provide management with timely business information. Although the department was sufficiently staffed, the team members were ineffective. Still, management did not have the resolve to terminate poor performers, for fear it would not be possible to hire quality analysts to replace the people who were terminated.

In such examples, people-related weaknesses result in business process key control failures often leading to the facilitation of subsequent frauds. The key control failure was the symptom, and the people-related weakness was the root cause. As a result, the achievement of the business objective of fraud prevention is rendered at risk.

Consider a fraud examiner’s proactive assessment of an organization’s procurement function. If the examiner finds that all key controls are designed adequately and operating effectively, in compliance with company policy, and targeted cost savings are being generated, should s/he conclude the controls are adequate? What if that department has a staff attrition rate of 25 percent and morale is low? Does that change the fraud vulnerability assessment? Clearly, even if the standard set of controls were in place, the function would not be performing at optimal levels.  Just as people problems can lead to risk and control failures, exceptional people can help a company achieve success. In fact, an effective system of internal control considers the adequacy of controls not only to address the risks related to poor people-related management but also to recognize reduction in fraud vulnerability due to excellence in people-related management.

The people issue should be addressed in at least two phases of the assurance professional’s review process: planning and issue analysis (i.e., understanding weaknesses, their root cause, and the appropriate corrective actions).  In the planning phase, the examiner should consider how people-related anti-fraud controls might impact the review and which controls should be included in the scope. The following questions might be considered in relation to anti-fraud controls over staffing, organization, training, management and leadership, performance appraisals, and employee development:

–How significant would a failure of people-related controls be to the achievement of objectives and the management of business risk covered by the examination?
–How critical is excellence in people management to the achievement of operational excellence related to the objectives of the review?

Issue analysis requires a different approach. Reviewers may have to ask the question “why” three or more times before they get to the root cause of a problem. Consider the following little post-fraud dialogue (we’ve all heard variations) …

CFE: “Why weren’t the reconciliations completed on time?”
MANAGER. “Because we were busy closing the books and one staff member was on vacation.”
CFE: “You are still expected to complete the reconciliations, which are critical to closing the books. Even with one person on vacation, why were you too busy?”
MANAGER: “We just don’t have enough people to get everything done, even when we work through weekends and until late at night.”
CFE: “Why don’t you have enough people?”
MANAGER: “Management won’t let me hire anybody else because of cost constraints.”
CFE: “Why won’t management let you hire anybody? Don’t they realize the issue?”
MANAGER: “Well, I think they do, but I have been so busy that I may not have done an effective job of explaining the situation. Now that you are going to write this up as a control weakness, maybe they will.”

The root cause of the problem in this scenario is that the manager responsible for reconciliations failed to provide effective leadership. She did not communicate the problem and ensure she had sufficient resources to perform the work assigned. The root cause is a people problem, and the reviewer should address that directly in his or her final report. If the CFE only reports that the reconciliations weren’t completed on time, senior management might only press the manager to perform better without understanding the post-fraud need for both performance improvement and additional staff.

In many organizations, it’s difficult for a reviewer to discuss people issues with management, even when these issues can be seen to directly and clearly contribute to fraud vulnerably. Assurance professionals may find it tricky, for political reasons to recommend the hiring of additional staff or to explain that the existing staff members do not have the experience or training necessary to perform their assigned tasks. Additionally, we are likely to run into political resistance when reporting management and leadership failure. But, that’s the job assurance professionals are expected to perform; to provide an honest, objective assessment of the condition of critical anti-fraud controls including those related to people.  If the scope of our work does not consider people risks, or if reviewers are unable to report people-related weaknesses, we are not adding the value we should. We’re also failing to report on matters critical to the maintenance and extension of the client’s anti-fraud program.

The Sword of Damocles

The media provide us with daily examples of the fact that technology is a double-edged sword. The technological advancements that make it easy for people with legitimate purposes to engage with our client businesses and governmental agencies also provide a mechanism for those bent on perpetrating theft and frauds of all kinds.

The access to services and information that customers have historically demanded has opened the flood gates through which disgruntled or unethical employees and criminals enter to commit fraud. Criminals are also exploiting the inadequacies of older fraud management policies or, in some instances, the overall lack thereof. Our parent organization, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) has estimated that about 70 percent of all companies around the world experienced some type of fraud in 2016, with total global losses due to fraud exceeding US $4 trillion annually and expected to rise continually.  Organizations have incurred, on average, the loss of an estimated 7 percent of their annual revenues to fraud, with $994 billion of that total in the US alone. The ACFE has also noted that the frauds reported lasted a median length of 18 months before being detected. In addition to the direct impact of revenue loss, fraud erodes customer satisfaction and drains investments that could have been directed to corporate innovation and growth. Organizations entrusted with personally identifiable information are also held directly accountable in the eyes of the public for any breach. Surveys have shown that about one-third of fraud victims avoid merchants they blame for their victimization.

We assurance professionals know that criminals become continuously more sophisticated and the fraud they perpetrate increasingly complex. In response, the requirements for fraud risk management have significantly changed over the last few years. Fraud risk management is now not a by-product, but a purposeful choice intended to mitigate or eliminate an organizations’ exposure to the ethically challenged. Fraud risk management is no longer a “once and done” activity, but has become an on-going, ideally concurrent, program. As with all effective processes, it must be performed according to some design. To counter fraud, an organization must first understand its unique situation and the risk to which it may be exposed. This cannot be accomplished in a vacuum or through divination, but through structured analysis of an organization’s current state. Organizations are compelled by their increasingly cyber supported environments to establish an appropriate enterprise fraud risk management framework aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives and supported by a well-planned road map leading the organization to its properly defined target state of protection. Performing adequate analysis of the current state and projecting the organization goals considering that desired state is essential.  Analysis is the bedrock for implementation of any enterprise fraud risk management framework to effectively manage fraud risk.

Fraud risk management is thus both a top-down and a bottom-up process. It’s critical for an organization to establish and implement the right policies, processes, technology and supporting components within the organization and to diligently enforce these policies and processes collaboratively and consistently to fight fraud effectively across the organization. To counter fraud at an enterprise level, organizations should develop an integrated counter fraud program that enables information sharing and collaboration; the goal is to prevent first, detect early, respond effectively, monitor continuously and learn constantly. Counter fraud experience in both the public and for-profit sectors has resulted in the identification of a few critical factors for the successful implementation of enterprise-wide fraud risk management in the present era of advanced technology and big data.

The first is fraud risk management by design. Organizations like the ACFE have increasingly acknowledged the continuously emerging pattern of innovative frauds and the urgency on the part of all organizations to manage fraud risk on a daily, concurrent basis.  As a result, organizations have attempted implementation of the necessary management processes and solutions. However, it is not uncommon that our client organizations find themselves lacking in the critical support components of such a program.  Accordingly, their fraud risk mitigation efforts tend to be poorly coordinated and, sometimes, even reactionary. The fraud risk management capabilities and technology solutions in place are generally implemented in silos and disconnected across the organization.  To coordinate and guide the effort, the ACFE recommends implementation of the following key components:

— A rigorous risk assessment process — An organization must have an effective fraud risk assessment process to systematically identify significant fraud risk and to determine its individual exposure to such risk. The assessment may be integrated with an overall risk assessment or performed as a stand-alone exercise, but it should, at a minimum, include risk identification, risk likelihood, significance assessment and risk response; a component for fraud risk mitigation and implementation of compensating controls across the critical business processes composing the enterprise is also necessary for cost-effective fraud management.

–Effective governance and clearly defined organizational responsibilities — Organizations must commit to an effective governance process providing oversight of the fraud management process. The central fraud risk management program must be equipped with a clear charter and accountability that will provide direction and oversight for counter fraud efforts. The fraud risk must be managed enterprise-wide with transparency and communication integrated across the organization. The formally designated fraud risk program owner must be at a level from which clear management guidelines can be communicated and implemented.

–An integrated counter fraud framework and approach — An organization-wide counter fraud framework that covers the complete landscape of fraud management (from enterprise security, authentication, business process, and application policy and procedure controls, to transaction monitoring and management), should be established. What we should be looking for as CFEs in evaluating a client’s program is a comprehensive counter fraud approach to continually enhance the consistency and efficacy of fraud management processes and practices.

–A coordinated network of counter fraud capabilities — An organization needs a structured, coordinated system of interconnected capabilities (not a point solution) implemented through management planning and proper oversight and governance. The system should ideally leverage the capabilities of big data and consider a broad set of attributes (e.g., identity, relationships, behaviors, patterns, anomalies, visualization) across multiple processes and systems. It should be transparent across users and provide guidance and alerts that enable timely and smart anti-fraud related decisions across the organization.

Secondly, a risk-based approach. No contemporary organization gets to stand still on the path to fraud risk management. Criminals are not going to give organizations a time-out to plug any holes and upgrade their arsenal of analytical tools. Organizations must adopt a risk-based approach to address areas and processes of highest risk exposures immediately, while planning for future fraud prevention enhancements. Countering fraud is an ongoing and continually evolving process, and the journey to the desired target state is a balancing act across the organization.

Thirdly, continual organizational collaboration and systemic learning. Fraud detection and prevention is not merely an information-gathering exercise and technology adoption, but an entire life cycle with continuous feedback and improvement. It requires the organization’s commitment to, and implementation of continual systemic learning, data sharing, and communication. The organization also needs to periodically align the enterprise counter fraud program with its strategic plan.

Fourthly, big data and advanced analytics.  Technological breakthroughs and capabilities grounded in big data and analytics can help prevent and counter fraudulent acts that impact the bottom line and threaten brand value and customer retention. Big data technology can ingest data from any source, regardless of structure, volume or velocity. It can harness, filter and sift through terabytes of data, whether in motion or at rest, to identify and relate the elements of information that really matter to the detection of on-going as well as of potential frauds. Big data off-the-shelf solutions already provide the means to detect instances of fraud, waste, abuse, financial crimes, improper payments, and more. Big data solutions can also reduce complexity across lines of business and allow organizations to manage fraud pervasively throughout the entire life cycle of any business process.

In summary, smart organizations manage the sword of potential fraud threats with well-planned road maps supported by proper organization and governance.  They analyze their state to understand where they are, and implement an integrated framework of standard management processes to provide the guidance and methodology for effective, ethics based, concurrent anti-fraud practice. The management of fraud risk is an integral part of their overall risk culture; a support system of interconnected counter fraud capabilities integrated across systems and processes, enabled by a technology strategy and supporting formal enterprise level oversight and governance.

A Blueprint for Fraud Risk Assessment

It appears that several of our Chapter members have been requested these last few months to assist their employers in conducting several types of fraud risk assessments. They usually do so as the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) member of their employing company’s internal audit-lead assessment team.   There is a consensus emerging among anti-fraud experts that conducting a fraud risk assessment (FRA) is critical to the process of detecting, and ultimately designing controls to prevent the ever-evolving types of fraud threatening organizations.

The ACFE tells us that FRAs do not necessarily specify what types of fraud are occurring in an organization. Instead, they are designed to focus detection efforts on specific fraud schemes and scenarios that could occur as well as on incidents that are known to have occurred in the past. Once these are identified, the audit team can proceed with the series of basic and specific fraud detection exercises that broad experience has shown to be effective. The objective of these exercises is to hopefully reveal the specific fraud schemes to which the organization is most exposed. This information will enable the organization’s audit team to recommend to management and to support the implementation of antifraud controls designed to address exactly those risks that have been identified.  It’s important to emphasize that fraud risk assessments are not meant to prevent fraud directly in and of themselves. They are exercises for identifying those specific fraud schemes and scenarios to which an organization is most vulnerable. That information is in turn used to conduct fraud audit exercises to highlight the circumstances that have allowed actual, known past frauds to occur or to blueprint future frauds that could occur so that the necessary controls can be put in place to prevent similar future illegal activity.

In the past, those FRAs that were conducted were usually performed by the firm’s external auditors. Increasingly, however, internal audit departments are being pressured by senior management to conduct FRAs of their own. Since internal audit departments are increasingly employing CFEs or have their expertise available to them through other company departments (like loss prevention or security), this effort can be effective since internal auditors have the tenure and experience with their organizations to know better than anyone how its financial and business operations function and can understand more readily how fraud could occur in particular processes, transactions, and business cycles.

Internal audit employed CFE’s and CIA’s aren’t involved by requirement of their professional standards in daily operations and can, therefore, provide an independent check on their organization’s overall risk management process. Audits can be considered a second channel of information on how well the enterprise’s anti-fraud controls are functioning and whether there are any deficiencies that need to be corrected.  To ensure this channel remains independent, it is important that the audit function report directly to the Audit Committee or to the board of directors and not to the chief executive officer or company president who may have responsibility for her company’s internal controls.

The Institute of Internal Auditors has endorsed audit standards that outline the techniques and procedures for conducting an FRA, specifically those contained in Statement of Auditing Standards 99 (SAS 99). By this (and other) key guidelines, an FRA is meant to assist auditors and/or fraud examiners in adjusting their audit and investigation plans to focus on gathering evidence of potential fraud schemes and scenarios identified by the FRA.

Responding to FRA findings requires the auditor to adjust the timing, nature, and extent of testing in such ways as:

• Performing procedures at physical locations on a surprise or unannounced basis by, for example, counting cash at different subsidiary locations on a surprise basis or reviewing loan portfolios of random loan officers or divisions of a savings and loan on a surprise basis;
• Requesting that financial performance data be evaluated at the end of the reporting period or on a date closer to period-end, in order, for example, to minimize the risk of manipulation of records in the period between the dates of account closings and the end of the reporting period;
• Making oral inquiries of major customers and vendors in addition to sending written confirmations, or sending confirmation requests to a specific party within vendor or customer organization;
• Performing substantive analytical procedures using disaggregated data by, for example, comparing gross profit or operating margins by branch office, type of service, line of business, or month to auditor-developed expectations;
• Interviewing personnel involved in activities in areas where a risk of material misstatement due to fraud has been identified in the past (such as at the country or regional level) to obtain their insights about the risk and how controls could address the risk.

CFE team members can make a substantial contribution to the internal audit lead team effort since it’s essential that financial operations managers and internal audit professionals understand how to conduct an FRA and to thoroughly assess the organization’s exposure to specific frauds. That contribution can add value to management’s eventual formulation and implementation of specific, customized controls designed to mitigate each type of fraud risk identified in the FRA. These are the measures that go beyond the basic, essential control checklists followed by many external auditors; they optimize the organization’s defenses against these risks. As such, they must vary from organization to organization, in accordance with the particular processes and procedures that are identified as vulnerable to fraud.

As an example, company A may process invoices in such a tightly controlled way, with double or triple approvals of new vendors, manual review of all invoices, and so on, that an FRA reveals few if any areas where red flags of vendor fraud can be identified. Company B, on the other hand, may process invoices simply by having the appropriate department head review and approve them. In the latter case, an FRA would raise red flags of potential fraud that could occur through double billing, sham company schemes, or collusion between a dishonest vendor and a company insider. For that reason, SAS 99 indicates that some risks are inherent in the environment of the entity, but most can be addressed with an appropriate system of internal control. Once fraud risk assessment has taken place, the entity can identify the processes, controls, and other procedures that are needed to mitigate the identified risks. Effective internal controls will include a well-developed control environment, an effective and secure information system, and appropriate control and monitoring activities. Because of the importance of information technology in supporting operations and the processing of transactions, management also needs to implement and maintain appropriate controls, whether automated or manual, over computer generated information.

The ACFE tells us that the heart of an effective internal controls system and the effectiveness of an anti-fraud program are contingent on an effective risk management assessment.  Although conducting an FRA is not terribly difficult, it does require careful planning and methodical execution. The structure and culture of the organization dictate how the FRA is formulated. In general, however, there is a basic, generally accepted form of the FRA that the audit and fraud prevention communities have agreed on and about which every experienced CFE is expected to be knowledgeable. Assessing the likelihood and significance of each potential fraud risk is a subjective process that should consider not only monetary significance, but also significance to an organization’s reputation and its legal and regulatory compliance requirements. An initial assessment of fraud risk should consider the inherent risk of a particular fraud in the absence of any known controls that may address the risk. An organization can cost-effectively manage its fraud risks by assessing the likelihood and significance of fraudulent behavior.

The FRA team should include a senior internal auditor (or the chief internal auditor, if feasible) and/or an experienced inside or outside certified fraud examiner with substantial experience in conducting FRAs for organizations in the company’s industry.  The management of the internal audit department should prepare a plan for all the assignments to be performed. The audit plan includes the timing and frequency of planned internal audit work. This audit plan is based on a methodical control risk assessment A control risk assessment documents the internal auditor’s understanding of the institution’s significant activities and their associated risks. The management of the internal audit department should establish the principles of the risk assessment methodology in writing and regularly update them to reflect changes to the system of internal control or work process, and to incorporate new lines of business. The risk analysis examines all the entity’s activities, and the complete internal control system. Based on the results of the risk analysis, an audit plan for several years is established, considering the degree of risk inherent in the activities. The plan also considers expected developments and innovations, the generally higher degree of risk of new activities, and the intention to audit all significant activities and entities within a reasonable time period (audit cycle principle for example, three
years). All those concerns will determine the extent, nature and frequency of the assignments to be performed.

In summary…

• A fraud risk assessment is an analysis of an organization’s risks of being victimized by specific types of fraud;
• Approaches to FRAs will differ from organization to organization, but most FRAs focus on identifying fraud risks in six key categories:
— Fraudulent financial reporting;
— Misappropriation of assets;
— Expenditures and liabilities for an improper purpose;
— Revenue and assets obtained by fraud;
— Costs and expenses avoided by fraud;
— Financial misconduct by senior management.
• A properly conducted FRA guides auditors in adjusting their audit plans and testing to focus specifically on gathering evidence of possible fraud;
• The capability to conduct an FRA is essential to effective assessment of the viability of existing anti-fraud controls and to strengthen the organization’s inadequate controls, as identified by the results of the FRA;
• In addition to assessing the types of fraud for which the organization is at risk, the FRA assesses the likelihood that each of those frauds might occur;
• After the FRA and subsequent fraud auditing work is completed, the FRA team should have a good idea of the specific controls needed to minimize the organization’s vulnerability to fraud;
• Auditing for fraud is a critical next step after assessing fraud risks, and this requires auditing for evidence of frauds that may exist according to the red flags identified by the FRA.

Write & Wrong

It’s an adage in the auditing world that examination results that can’t be effectively communicated might as well not exist.  Unlike a financial statement audit report, the CFE’s final report presents a unique challenge because there is no standardized format. Our Chapter receives more general inquiries from new practitioners about the form and content of final examination reports than about almost any other topic.

Each fraud investigation report is different in structure and content, depending on the nature and results of the assignment and the information that needs to be communicated, as well as to whom the results are being directed. To be effective, therefore, the report must communicate the findings in an accurate and concise form. Corporate counsel, law enforcement, juries, an employing attorney and/or the audit committee and management of the victimized organization must all be able to delineate and understand the factual aspects of the fraud as well as the related risks and control deficiencies discovered so that appropriate actions can be taken timely. Thus, the choice of words used and the tone of the CFE’s final report are as important as the information presented within it. To help ensure their reports are persuasive and bring positive results, CFEs should strive to keep them specific, meaningful, actionable, results oriented, and timely.

Because the goal of the final report is to ensure that the user can interpret the results of the investigation or analysis with accuracy and according to the intentions of the fraud examiner or forensic accountant, the report’s tone and structure are paramount. The report should begin by aligning issues and recommendations with applicable ACFE and with any other applicable professional standards and end with results that are clearly written and timely presented. To ensure quality and accuracy, there are some basic guidelines or ground rules that authorities recommend should be considered when putting together a final report that adds value.

The CFE should consider carefully what specifically to communicate in the report, including the conditions, cause, effect, and “why” of each of the significant fraud related facts uncovered.  Fraud investigators should always identify and address issues in a specific context rather than in broad or general terms. For example, stating that the fraud resulted from weaknesses in the collection and processing of vendor payment receipts is too broad. The report should identify the exact circumstances and the related control issues and risk factors identified, the nature of the findings, an analysis of the specific actions constituting the fraud and some discussion (if the CFE has been requested to do so) of possible corrective actions that might be taken.

To force the writing toward more specificity, each paragraph of the report should express only one finding, with major points enumerated, or bulleted, and parallel structure should be used for each itemized statement of a listing of items. Further, the most important findings should be listed in the first sentence of a paragraph. Once findings are delineated, the explanatory narration of facts aligned to each finding should be presented. Being specific means leaving nothing to the
user’s interpretation beyond that which is intended by the writer.  Another way to achieve specificity is to align the writing of the report to an existing control framework like the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission’s (COSO’s) internal control or risk management frameworks. When issues are aligned with existing standards or to a framework, it can be easier for the CFE to explain the weaknesses in the client’s control environment that made the fraud possible.

The question to be answered is: Can the client(s) readily tell what the issues are by reading the investigative report alone? If the answer is “no,” how will they satisfactorily address areas the client will eventually deem important in moving forward toward either remediation or possible prosecution? This aspect of the writing process requires the practitioner to, first, identify to whom the final report is specifically directed and, second, determine what is to be communicated that will add value for the client. For example, the report may a communication to an employing attorney, to corporate counsel, to the client’s management or audit committee or to all three. What are their expectations? Is the report the result of a routine investigation requested by client management of possible accounts payable fraud or a special investigation to address a suspected, specifically identified fraud? The answer to these and related questions will help determine the appropriate technical level and tone for the report.

When there are different readers of the report, the process necessarily becomes more complex under the necessity to meet the expectations, understandings and eventual usages of all the parties. Finding the right words to address the identified fraud related facts in a positive tone, especially when client conditions surrounding the fraud are sometimes sensitive or at least not favorable, is crucial to making the report meaningful as well as persuasive. The investigative findings must be clear and logical. If the reported results are understood and meaningful actions that add value to the position of the various users are taken because of the findings, then the purpose and meaning of the CFE’s report (and work) will be realized.

What about investigative situations in which the CFE or forensic accountant is asked to move beyond a straight-forward presentation of the facts and, as an expert on fraud and on fraud prevention, make recommendations as to corrective actions that the client might take to forestall the future commission of frauds similar to those dealt with in the final report? In such cases (which are quite common, especially with larger clients), the final report should strive to demonstrate to the extent possible the capacity of the entity to implement the recommendations the CFE has included in the report and still maintain an acceptable level of operation.  To this end, the requested recommended actions should be written in a way that conveys to management that implementing the recommendations will strengthen the organization’s overall fraud prevention capability. The writing, as well as the complexity of the corrective action, should position the client organization to implement recommendations to strengthen fraud prevention. The report should begin with the most critical issue and progress to the least important and move from the easiest recommended corrective steps to the most difficult, or to the sequence of steps to implement a recommendation. The cost to correct the fraud vulnerability should be
apparent and easily determined in the written report. Additionally, the report should provide management with a rubric to evaluate the extent to which a deficiency is corrected (e.g., minimally corrected, fully corrected). Such a guide can be used to gauge the fraud prevention related decisions of management and serve as a basis for future fraud risk assessments.

Developing the CFE’s final report is a process that involves four stages: outlining, drafting, revising, and editing. In the outlining stage, the practitioner should gather and organize the information so that, when converted to a report, it is easy for the reader to follow. This entails reviewing the working papers and making a list of the fraud related facts to be addressed and of their related chronologies. These should be discussed with the investigative team (if any) and the
client attorney, if necessary, to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the underlying facts of the case. Any further work or research should be completed at this stage. This process may be simple or complicated, depending on the extent of the investigation, the unit or operation that is under examination, and the number of fraud related facts that must be addressed.

Once all information has been gathered, the next stage is writing the draft of the report. In completing the draft, concise and coherent statements with sufficient detail should enable the reader to understand the chronology and related facts of the fraud, the fraud’s impact on operations, and the proposed corrective actions (if requested by the client). After completing the draft, revisions may be necessary to make sure that the evidence supports the results and is written in a specific context.

The final stage involves proofreading and editing for correct grammar, sentence structure, and word usage to ensure that the facts and issues related to the fraud are effectively and completely presented and that the report is coherent. Reviewers should be used at this stage to give constructive feedback. Several iterations may be necessary before a final report is completed.

In summary, the CFE’s final report should be designed to add value and to guide the client organization’s subsequent steps to a satisfactory overall fraud response and conclusion. If the CFE’s report is deficient in communicating results, critical follow-on steps requiring immediate action may be skipped or ignored. This can be costly for any company in lost opportunities for loss recoveries, botched prosecutions and damaged reputation.

New Rules for New Tools

I’ve been struck these last months by several articles in the trade press about CFE’s increasingly applying advanced analytical techniques in support of their work as full-time employees of private and public-sector enterprises.  This is gratifying to learn because CFE’s have been bombarded for some time now about the risks presented by cloud computing, social media, big data analytics, and mobile devices, and told they need to address those risk in their investigative practice.  Now there is mounting evidence of CFEs doing just that by using these new technologies to change the actual practice of fraud investigation and forensic accounting by using these innovative techniques to shape how they understand and monitor fraud risk, plan and manage their work, test transactions against fraud scenarios, and report the results of their assessments and investigations to management; demonstrating what we’ve all known, that CFEs, especially those dually certified as CPAs, CIAs, or CISA’s can bring a unique mix of leveraged skills to any employer’s fraud prevention or detection program.

Some examples …

Social Media — following a fraud involving several of the financial consultants who work in its branches and help customers select accounts and other investments, a large multi-state bank requested that a staff CFE determine ways of identifying disgruntled employees who might be prone to fraud. The effort was important to management not only because of fraud prevention but because when the bank lost an experienced financial consultant for any reason, it also lost the relationships that individual had established with the bank’s customers, affecting revenue adversely. The staff CFE suggested that the bank use social media analytics software to mine employees’ email and posts to its internal social media groups. That enabled the bank to identify accurately (reportedly about 33 percent) the financial consultants who were not currently satisfied with their jobs and were considering leaving. Management was able to talk individually with these employees and address their concerns, with the positive outcome of retaining many of them and rendering them less likely to express their frustration by ethically challenged behavior.  Our CFE’s awareness that many organizations use social media analytics to monitor what their customers say about them, their products, and their services (a technique often referred to as sentiment analysis or text analytics) allowed her to suggest an approach that rendered value. This text analytics effort helped the employer gain the experience to additionally develop routines to identify email and other employee and customer chatter that might be red flags for future fraud or intrusion attempts.

Analytics — A large international bank was concerned about potential money laundering, especially because regulators were not satisfied with the quality of their related internal controls. At a CFE employee’s recommendation, it invested in state-of-the-art business intelligence solutions that run “in-memory”, a new technique that enables analytics and other software to run up to 300,000 times faster, to monitor 100 percent of its transactions, looking for the presence of patterns and fraud scenarios indicating potential problems.

Mobile — In the wake of an identified fraud on which he worked, an employed CFE recommended that a global software company upgrade its enterprise fraud risk management system so senior managers could view real-time strategy and risk dashboards on their mobile devices (tablets and smartphones). The executives can monitor risks to both the corporate and to their personal objectives and strategies and take corrective actions as necessary. In addition, when a risk level rises above a defined target, the managers and the risk officer receive an alert.

Collaboration — The fraud prevention and information security team at a U.S. company wanted to increase the level of employee acceptance and compliance with its fraud prevention – information security policy. The CFE certified Security Officer decided to post a new policy draft to a collaboration area available to every employee and encouraged them to post comments and suggestions for upgrading it. Through this crowd-sourcing technique, the company received multiple comments and ideas, many of which were incorporated into the draft. When the completed policy was published, the company found that its level of acceptance increased significantly, its employees feeling that they had part ownership.

As these examples demonstrate, there is a wonderful opportunity for private and public sector employed CFE’s to join in the use of enterprise applications to enhance both their and their employer’s investigative efficiency and effectiveness.  Since their organizations are already investing heavily in a wide variety of innovative technologies to transform the way in which they deliver products to and communicate with customers, as well as how they operate, manage, and direct the business, there is no reason that CFE’s can’t use these same tools to transform each stage of their examination and fraud prevention work.

A risk-based fraud prevention approach requires staff CFEs to build and maintain the fraud prevention plan, so it addresses the risks that matter to the organization, and then update that plan as risks change. In these turbulent times, dominated by cyber, risks change frequently, and it’s essential that fraud prevention teams understand the changes and ensure their approach for addressing them is updated continuously. This requires monitoring to identify and assess both new risks and changes in previously identified risks.  Some of the recent technologies used by organizations’ financial and operational analysts, marketing and communications professionals, and others to understand both changes within and outside the business can also be used to great advantage by loss prevention staff for risk monitoring. The benefits of leveraging this same software are that the organization has existing experts in place to teach CFE’s how to use it, the IT department already is providing technical support, and the software is currently used against the very data enterprise fraud prevention professionals like staff CFEs want to analyze.  A range of enhanced analytics software such as business intelligence, analytics (including predictive and mobile analytics), visual intelligence, sentiment analysis, and text analytics enable fraud prevention to monitor and assess risk levels. In some cases, the software monitors transactions against predefined rules to identify potential concerns such as heightened fraud risks in any given business process or in a set of business processes (the inventory or financial cycles).  For example, a loss prevention team headed by a staff CFE can monitor credit memos in the first month of each quarter to detect potential revenue accounting fraud. Another use is to identify trends associated with known fraud scenarios, such as changes in profit margins or the level of employee turnover, that might indicate changes in risk levels. For example, the level of emergency changes to enterprise applications can be analyzed to identify a heightened risk of poor testing and implementation protocols associated with a higher vulnerability to cyber penetration.

Finally, innovative staff CFEs have used some interesting techniques to report fraud risk assessments and examination results to management and to boards. Some have adopted a more visually appealing representation in a one-page assessment report; others have moved to the more visual capabilities of PowerPoint from the traditional text presentation of Microsoft Word.  New visualization technology, sometimes called visual analytics when allied with analytics solutions, provides more options for fraud prevention managers seeking to enhance or replace formal reports with pictures, charts, and dashboards.  The executives and boards of their employing organizations are already managing their enterprise with dashboards and trend charts; effective loss prevention communications can make effective use of the same techniques. One CFE used charts and trend lines to illustrate how the time her employing company was taking to process small vendor contracts far exceeded acceptable levels, had contributed to fraud risk and was continuing to increase. The graphic, generated by a combination of a business intelligence analysis and a visual analytics tool to build the chart, was inserted into a standard monthly loss prevention report.

CFE headed loss prevention departments and their allied internal audit and IT departments have a rich selection of technologies that can be used by them individually or in combination to make them all more effective and efficient. It is questionable whether these three functions can remain relevant in an age of cyber, addressing and providing assurance on the risks that matter to the organization, without an ever wider use of modern technology. Technology can enable the an internal CFE to understand the changing business environment and the risks that can affect the organization’s ability to achieve its fraud prevention related objectives.

The world and its risks are evolving and changing all the time, and assurance professionals need to address the issues that matter now. CFEs need to review where the risk is going to be, not where it was when the anti-fraud plan was built. They increasingly need to have the ability to assess cyber fraud risk quickly and to share the results with the board and management in ways that communicate assurance and stimulate necessary change.

Technology must be part of the solution to that need. Technological tools currently utilized by CFEs will continue to improve and will be joined by others over time. For example, solutions for augmented or virtual reality, where a picture or view of the physical world is augmented by data about that picture or view enables loss prevention professionals to point their phones at a warehouse and immediately access operational, personnel, safety, and other useful information; representing that the future is a compound of both challenge and opportunity.

The Conflicted Board

Our last post about cyberfraud and business continuity elicited a comment about the vital role of corporate governance from an old colleague of mine now retired and living in Seattle.  But the wider question our commenter had was, ‘What are we as CFEs to make of a company whose Board willfully withholds for months information about a cyberfraud which negatively impacts it customers and the public? From the ethical point of view, does this render the Board somehow complicit in the public harm done?’

Governance of shareholder-controlled corporations refers to the oversight, monitoring, and controlling of a company’s activities and personnel to ensure support of the shareholders’ interests, in accordance with laws and the expectations of stakeholders. Governance has been more formally defined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a set of relationships between a company’s management, its Board, its shareholders, and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set (including about ethical continuity), and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance. Good corporate governance should provide proper incentives for the Board and management to pursue objectives that are in the interests of the company and its shareholders and should facilitate effective monitoring.

The role and mandate of the Board of Directors is of paramount importance in the governance framework. Typically, the directors are elected by the shareholders at their annual meeting, which is held to receive the company’s audited annual financial statements and the audit report thereon, as well as the comments of the chairman of the Board, the senior company officers, and the company auditor.

A Board of Directors often divides itself into subcommittees that concentrate more deeply in specific areas than time would allow the whole Board to pursue. These subcommittees are charged with certain actions and/or reviews on behalf of the whole Board, with the proviso that the whole Board must be briefed on major matters and must vote on major decisions. Usually, at least three subcommittees are created to review matters related to (1) governance, (2) compensation, and (3) audit, and to present their recommendations to the full Board. The Governance Committee deals with codes of conduct and company policy, as well as the allocation of duties among the subcommittees of the Board. The Compensation Committee reviews the performance of senior officers, and makes recommendations on the nature and size of salaries, bonuses, and related remuneration plans. Most important to fraud examiners and assurance professionals, the Audit Committee reviews internal controls and systems that generate financial reports prepared by management; the appropriateness of those financial reports; the effectiveness of the company’s internal and external auditors; its whistle-blowing systems, and their findings; and recommends the re-election or not of the company’s external auditors.

The Board must approve the selection of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and many Boards are now approving the appointment of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) as well because of the important of that position. Generally, the CEO appoints other senior executives, and they, in turn, appoint the executives who report to them. Members of these committees are selected for their expertise, interest, and character, with the expectation that the independent judgment of each director will be exercised in the best interest of the company. For example, the ACFE tells us, members of the Audit Committee must be financially literate, and have sufficient expertise to understand audit and financial matters. They must be of independent mind (i.e., not be part of management or be relying upon management for a significant portion of their annual income), and must be prepared to exercise that independence by voting for the interest of all shareholders, not just those of management or of specific limited shareholder groups.

Several behavioral expectations extend to all directors, i.e., to act in the best interest of the company (shareholders & stakeholders), to demonstrate loyalty by exercising independent judgment, acting in good faith, obedient to the interests of all and to demonstrate due care, diligence, and skill.

All directors are expected to demonstrate certain fiduciary duties. Shareholders are relying on directors to serve shareholders’ interests, not the directors’ own interests, nor those of management or a third party. This means that directors must exercise their own independent judgment in the best interests of the shareholders. The directors must do so in good faith (with true purpose, not deceit) on all occasions. They must exercise appropriate skill, diligence, and an expected level of care in all their actions.

Obviously, there will be times when directors will be able to make significant sums of money by misusing the trust with which they have been bestowed and at the expense of the other stakeholders of the company. At these times a director’s interests may conflict with those of the others. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that such conflicts are disclosed, and that they are managed so that no harm comes to the other shareholders. For example, if a director has an interest in some property or in a company that is being purchased, s/he should disclose this to the other directors and refrain from voting on the acquisition. These actions should alert other directors to the potential self-dealing of the conflicted director, and thereby avoid the non-conflicted directors from being misled into thinking that the conflicted director was acting only with the corporation’s interests in mind.

From time to time, directors may be sued’ by shareholders or third parties who believe that the directors have failed to live up to appropriate expectations. However, courts will not second-guess reasonable decisions by non-conflicted directors that have been taken prudently and on a reasonably informed basis. This is known as the business judgment ru1e and it protects directors charged with breach of their duty of care if they have acted honestly and reasonably. Even if no breach of legal rights has occurred, shareholders may charge that their interests have been ‘oppressed’ (i.e., prejudiced unfairly, or unfairly disregarded) by a corporation or a director’s actions, and courts may grant what is referred to as an oppression remedy of financial compensation or other sanctions against the corporation or the director personally. If, however, the director has not been self-dealing or misappropriating the company’s opportunities, s/he will likely be protected from personal liability by the business judgment rule.

Some shareholders or third parties have chosen to sue directors ‘personally in tort’ for their conduct as directors, even when they have acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties, and when they believed they were acting in the best interests of the corporations they serve.  Recently, courts have held that directors cannot escape such personal liability by simply claiming that they did the action when performing their corporate responsibilities. Consequently, directors or officers must take care when making all decisions that they meet normal standards of behavior.

Consequently, when management and the Board of a company who has been the victim of a cyber-attack decides to withhold information about the attack (sometimes for weeks or months), fundamental questions about compliance with fiduciary standards and ethical duty toward other stakeholders and the public can quickly emerge.   The impact of recent corporate cyber-attack scandals on the public has the potential to change future governance expectations dramatically. Recognition that some of these situations appear to have resulted from management inattention or neglect (the failure to timely patch known software vulnerabilities, for example) has focused attention on just how well a corporation can expect to remediate its public face and ensure ongoing business continuity following such revelations to the public.

My colleague points out that so damaging were the apparently self-protective actions taken by the Boards of some of these victim companies in the wake of several recent attacks to protect their share price, (thereby shielding the interests of existing executives, directors, and investors in the short term) that the credibility of their entire corporate governance and accountability processes has been jeopardized, thus endangering, in some cases, even their ability to continue as viable going concerns.

In summary, in the United States, the Board of Directors sits at the apex of a company’s governing structure. A typical Board’s duties include reviewing the company’s overall business strategy, selecting and compensating the company’s senior executives; evaluating the company’s outside auditor, overseeing the company’s financial statements; and monitoring overall company performance. According to the Business Roundtable, the Board’s ‘paramount duty’ is to safeguard the interests of the company’s shareholders.  It’s fair to ask if a Board that chooses not to reveal to its stakeholders or to the general investor public a potentially devastating cyber-fraud for many months can be said to have meet either the letter or the spirit of its paramount duty.

Asked and Answered

Some months ago, I was involved as a member of an out-of-town fraud examination team during which the question of note taking during an investigative interview arose. A younger member of the team (a junior internal auditor) wanted to know about approaches to the documentation of not just one, but possibly of the several prospective interview sessions it initially appeared might be necessary regarding the examination.

As the ACFE tells us, notes, whether handwritten or recorded, always send an unambiguous signal to the subject that the interviewer is memorializing his or her comments. Interviews without notes are significantly limited in their value and may even signal to the interview subject that it may later be just a question of her word against the interviewer’s. If the interviewer takes only cryptic or shorthand notes and later reviews those notes with the subject to confirm what was said, the interviewer should recognize that the notes, while confirmed and edited to a certain extent, will still be less than complete.

On the other hand, tape recording an interview is a significant obstacle to full cooperation. People are reluctant to be recorded. For the most part, the use of tape recorders to take notes is not recommended in situations involving a potential fraud. Most subjects will resist the use of recorders and, even in circumstances where the subject may have agreed to their use, their responses will be more guarded than if a recorder was not used. If a recorder is used, be sure to begin the taping by recording the date, time, names of the individuals present, and an acknowledgment by the subject that they know the interview is being recorded and they have agreed to be recorded.

Once the interviewer has determined how s/he will document the interview, s/he should ask the subject if it is okay to take notes or record the session. It is the polite and professional thing to do and it serves two purposes:

–It is part of the process by which the subject is encouraged to be a participant;
–If the subject balks or tells the interviewer she does mind that the interviewer takes notes, it can open a line of questioning by the interviewer to determine the exact cause of the subject’s objections;

The subject should always be advised that note taking is critical to the integrity of the process and that notes ensure that what the subject says is documented properly. Failure to take notes limits the information to the memory and interpretation of the interviewer.  In a professional setting, most subjects will understand the critical nature of notes. Very few people will say it is not all right to take notes, regardless of how they feel about it. If they are absolutely opposed to the taking of notes, find out why and concentrate on what the subject says and reduce the interview to notes as quickly as possible after the interview. With a hostile subject who opposes note taking, the interviewer can ask if it is okay for her to make selected notes regarding dates or things the interviewer might not remember later. The interviewer can explain that it is important that s/he understand the subject’s position or communication correctly. If the subject is still adamant about the interviewer not taking notes, it should be documented in the interviewer’s report.

As the fraud interviewer develops his or her interviewing skill set, s/he should concentrate on taking verbatim notes which, among other things, include, at a minimum, nouns, pronouns, and verbs. Some practitioners recommend that the interviewer not attempt to write everything down. The argument is that, in doing so, the interviewer will not have an opportunity to observe the subject’s nonverbal communications.

The generally accepted recommendation is, therefore, where feasible, that the interviewer take down verbatim as much of what the subject says as is possible. This includes repeated words and parenthetical comments. This practice allows the interviewer to later review what the subject said as opposed to what the interviewer thought the subject said. Note taking also provides additional documentation of what the subject is communicating and (when reviewed after the fact in the light of additional knowledge) of what the subject has excluded.

During the act of taking notes, the interviewer should exercise caution. Taking notes intermittently can signal to the subject that the interviewer takes notes only when the information is important. Conversely, if, during the interview, a very sensitive area is broached, or if the subject indicates that s/he is uncomfortable with an area or issue, the interviewer can put her pencil down, lean forward, establish good eye contact, and listen to the subject. The simple suspension of note taking may place the subject at ease. As soon as the interview moves to a less sensitive area, the interviewer should try to reduce the previously mentioned sensitive area to notes. If the subject associates note taking with core interview information, the subject may interpret continued note taking as encouragement to continue talking.

The interviewer should not write down interpretive comments while taking notes. The interviewer should however make notes, where appropriate, in cases where verbal and
nonverbal indications of both resistance or cooperation are found.

The interviewer should always take notes with the possibility in mind that the notes may be subjected to third party scrutiny. This scrutiny may extend to opposing counsel in the event of litigation. The interviewer’s notes may or may not be privileged materials. With this in
mind, the interviewer should consider the following:

–Begin each separate set of interview notes on a clean page;
–Identify the date, time, and place of the interview and all the individuals present at the interview;
–Obtain as much background data on the subject as possible, including telephone numbers, and identify means of contacting him or her, including alternate numbers for family and friends;
–Initial and date the notes;
–Document the interviewer’s questions;
–Take verbatim notes if possible. Concentrate, but do not limit notes of the subject’s responses to:
• Nouns
• Pronouns
• Verb tense
• Qualifiers
• Indicators of responsibility, innocence, or guilt
–Do not document conclusions or interpretations;
–Report any unusual change in body language in an objective manner. Document the changes in body language and tone, if applicable, in conjunction with notes of what the subject or interviewer said at the time the body language or tone changed;
–At the conclusion of the interview, review the notes with the subject to confirm what the subject has said.

Finally, following the interview, your notes should be reproduced in printed form as quickly as possible.  Enough cannot be said for the value of a well-documented set of interview notes for every aspect of a subsequent investigation; their presence or absence can make or break your entire case.

RVACFES May 2017 Event Sold-Out!

On May 17th and 18th the Central Virginia ACFE Chapter and our partners, the Virginia State Police and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) were joined by an over-flow crowd of audit and assurance professionals for the ACFE’s training course ‘Conducting Internal Investigations’. The sold-out May 2017 seminar was the ninth that our Chapter has hosted over the years with the Virginia State Police utilizing a distinguished list of certified ACFE instructor-practitioners.

Our internationally acclaimed instructor for the May seminar was Gerard Zack, CFE, CPA, CIA, CCEP. Gerry has provided fraud prevention and investigation, forensic accounting, and internal and external audit services for more than 30 years. He has worked with commercial businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and government agencies throughout North America and Europe. Prior to starting his own practice in 1990, Gerry was an audit manager with a large international public accounting firm. As founder and president of Zack, P.C., he has led numerous fraud investigations and designed customized fraud risk management programs for a diverse client base. Through Zack, P.C., he also provides outsourced internal audit services, compliance and ethics programs, enterprise risk management, fraud risk assessments, and internal control consulting services.

Gerry is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) and Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and has focused most of his career on audit and fraud-related services. Gerry serves on the faculty of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and is the 2009 recipient of the ACFE’s James Baker Speaker of the Year Award. He is also a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) and a Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (CCEP).

Gerry is the author of Financial Statement Fraud: Strategies for Detection and Investigation (published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons), Fair Value Accounting Fraud: New Global Risks and Detection Techniques (2009 by John Wiley & Sons), and Fraud and Abuse in Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Prevention and Detection (2003 by John Wiley & Sons). He is also the author of numerous articles on fraud and teaches seminars on fraud prevention and detection for businesses, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. He has provided customized internal staff training on specialized auditing issues, including fraud detection in audits, for more than 50 CPA firms.

Gerry is also the founder of the Nonprofit Resource Center, through which he provides antifraud training and consulting and online financial management tools specifically geared toward the unique internal control and financial management needs of nonprofit organizations. Gerry earned his M.B.A at Loyola University in Maryland and his B.S.B.A at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania.

To some degree, organizations of every size, in every industry, and in every city, experience internal fraud. No entity is immune. Furthermore, any member of an organization can carry out fraud, whether it is committed by the newest customer service employee or by an experienced and highly respected member of upper management. The fundamental reason for this is that fraud is a human problem, not an accounting problem. As long as organizations are employing individuals to perform business functions, the risk of fraud exists.

While some organizations aggressively adopt strong zero tolerance anti-fraud policies, others simply view fraud as a cost of doing business. Despite varying views on the prevalence of, or susceptibility to, fraud within a given organization, all must be prepared to conduct a thorough internal investigation once fraud is suspected. Our ‘Conducting Internal Investigations’ event was structured around the process of investigating any suspected fraud from inception to final disposition and beyond.

What constitutes an act that warrants an examination can vary from one organization to another and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is often resolved based on a definition of fraud adopted by an employer or by a government agency. There are numerous definitions of fraud, but a popular example comes from the joint ACFE-COSO publication, Fraud Risk Management Guide:

Fraud is any intentional act or omission designed to deceive others, resulting in the victim suffering a loss and/or the perpetrator achieving a gain.

However, many law enforcement agencies have developed their own definitions, which might be more appropriate for organizations operating in their jurisdictions. Consequently, fraud examiners should determine the appropriate legal definition in the jurisdiction in which the suspected offense was committed.

Fraud examination is a methodology for resolving fraud allegations from inception to disposition. More specifically, fraud examination involves:

–Assisting in the detection and prevention of fraud;
–Initiating the internal investigation;
–Obtaining evidence and taking statements;
–Writing reports;
–Testifying to findings.

A well run internal investigation can enhance a company’s overall well-being and can help detect the source of lost funds, identify responsible parties and recover losses. It can also provide a defense to legal charges by terminated or disgruntled employees. But perhaps, most importantly, an internal investigation can signal to every company employee that the company will not tolerate fraud.

Our two-day seminar agenda included Gerry’s in depth look at the following topics:

–Assessment of the risk of fraud within an organization and responding when it is identified;
–Detection and investigation of internal frauds with the use of data analytics;
–The collection of documents and electronic evidence needed during an investigation;
–The performance of effective information gathering and admission seeking interviews;
–The wide variety of legal and regulatory concerns related to internal investigations.

Gerry did his usual tremendous job in preparing the professionals in attendance to deal with every step in an internal fraud investigation, from receiving the initial allegation to testifying as a witness. The participants learned to lead an internal investigation with accuracy and confidence by gaining knowledge about topics such as the relevant legal aspects impacting internal investigations, the use of computers and analytics during the investigation, collecting and analyzing internal and external information, and interviewing witnesses and the writing of effective reports.

Empire Lost

marthastuart2Last week my wife and I were confronted with the challenge of  hosting a Christmas party for 24 of our relatives.  We thought we’d serve a standing prime rib roast to the guests and turned to a Martha Stewart Cooking School episode on PBS for preparation guidance.  Needless to say, the roast was delicious but seeing Stuart again after all this time got me thinking about her classic insider trading case of what now seems so long ago.

In June 2002, Martha Stewart began to wrestle with allegations that she had improperly used inside information to sell a failed personal stock investment to the unsuspecting investing public. That was when her personal friend Sam Waksal was defending himself against Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegations that he had tipped off his family members so they could sell their shares of ImClone Systems Inc. just before other investors learned that ImClone’s stock was about to tank. Observers presumed that Stuart was also tipped off and, even though she proclaimed her innocence, the rumors would not go away. On daily TV as the reigning guru of homemaking, Ms. Stuart was the multimillionaire proprietor, president, and driving force of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. (MSO), of which, on March 18, 2002, she owned 30,713,475 (62.6 percent) of the class A, and 30,619,375 {100 percent) of the class B shares.

On December 27, 2001, her class A and class B shares were worth approximately $17 each, so on paper her MSO class A shares alone were worth over $500 million. Class B shares were convertible into class A shares on a one to-one basis. What was not known was that Stewart had sold 3,928 shares of ImClone for $58 each on December 27, 2001.  This was not public until the information surfaced in June 2003.  The sale generated $227,824, and she avoided losing $45,673 when the stock price dropped the next day.  The whole sorry episode over this relatively small amount of money wound up causing her endless personal grief and humiliation, dealt a devastating blow to her reputation, and precipitated a punishing drop to $5.26 in the MSO share price.

As some of your probably remember, it turned out that Stuart had made an investment in ImClone, a company that was trying to get the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring to market an anti-colon cancer drug called Erbitux. Samuel Waksal, then the CEO of ImClone and a friend of Stuart’s, was apparently warned on or close to December 25, 2001, that the FDA was going to refuse to review Erbitux. Per later SEC allegations, Waksal relayed the information to his family so they could dump their ImClone shares on the public before the official announcement. Martha claimed (and still claims) that she didn’t get any early inside information from Waksal, but regulators believed that she may have either gotten it from her broker or from her broker’s aide. The activities of several of Waksal’s friends, including Stuart all came under almost immediate investigation by the SEC.

Waksal was arrested on June 12, 2002, and charged with “nine criminal counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and perjury, and then freed on $10 million bail. In a related civil complaint, the SEC alleged that Waksal “tried to sell ImClone stock and tipped family members before ImClone’s official FDA announcement on Dec. 28.”  Per the SEC, two unidentified members of Waksal’s family sold about $10 million worth of ImClone stock in a two-day interval just before the announcement. Moreover, Waksal also tried for two days to sell nearly 80,000 ImClone shares for about $5 million, but two different brokers refused to process the trades. Stuart denied any wrongdoing. She was quoted as saying: “In placing my trade I had no improper information…. My transaction was entirely lawful.”  She admitted calling Waksal after selling her shares, but claimed: “I did not reach Mr. Waksal, and he did not return my call.”  She maintained that she had an agreement with her broker to sell her remaining ImClone shares “if the stock dropped below $60 per share.” Stuart’s viewing public, however, was skeptical. She was asked embarrassing questions when she appeared on TV for a cooking segment, and she declined to answer saying: “I am here to make my salad.”

Martha’s interactions with her broker, Peter Bacanovic, and his assistant, Douglas Faneuil, quickly came under scrutiny. Merrill Lynch & Co. suspended Bacanovic (who was also Sam Waksal’s broker) and Faneuil, with pay, in late June. Later, since all phone calls to brokerages are taped and emails kept, it appeared to be damning when Bacanovic initially refused to provide his cell phone records to the House Energy and Commerce Commission for their investigation. Then, on October 4, 2001, Faneuil “pleaded guilty to a charge that he accepted gifts from his superior in return for keeping quiet about circumstances surrounding Stewart’s controversial stock sale.”  Faneuil admitted that he received extra vacation time, including a free airline ticket from a Merrill Lynch employee in exchange for withholding information from SEC and FBI investigators.

Per court records:

“On the morning of Dec. 27, Faneuil received a telephone call from a Waksal family member who asked to sell 39,472 shares for almost $2.5 million. Waksal’s accountant also called Faneuil in an unsuccessful attempt to sell a large block of shares. Prosecutors allege that those orders “constituted material non-public information.” They also allege that Faneuil violated his duty to Merrill Lynch by calling a “tippee” to relate that Waksal family members were attempting to liquidate their holdings in ImClone. That person then sold “all the tippee’s shares of ImClone stock, approximately 3,928 shares, yielding proceeds of approximately $228,000.”

One day later, on October 5th, it was announced that Stuart had resigned from her post as a director of the New York Stock Exchange (a post she held only four months) and the price of MSO shares declined more than 7 percent to $6.32 in afternoon trading. From June 12th to October 12th, the share price of MSO declined by approximately 61 percent. Stuart’s future took a further interesting turn on October 15th, when Sam Waksal pleaded guilty to six counts of his indictment, including: bank fraud, securities fraud, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and perjury. But he did not agree to cooperate with prosecutors, and did not incriminate Stuart. Waksal’s sentencing was postponed until 2003 so his lawyers could exchange information with U.S. District Judge William Pauley concerning Waksal’s financial records.  After October 15th, the price of MSO shares rose, perhaps as the prospect of Stuart’s going to jail appeared to become more remote, and/or people began to consider MSO to be more than Stuart and her reputation. The recovery from the low point of the MSO share price in October to December 9, 2002, was about 40 percent.

Stuart still had a lot to think about, however. Apparently, the SEC gave Stuart notice in September of its intent to file civil securities fraud charges against her. Stuart’s lawyers responded and the SEC deliberated. Even if Martha were to get off with a fine, prosecutors could still bring a criminal case against her in the future. It is an interesting legal question, however, that if Stuart had simply pled guilty to the civil charges, would she have avoided criminal liability completely? On June 4, 2003, Stewart was indicted on charges of obstructing justice and securities fraud. She then quit as Chairman and CEO of her company, but stayed on the Board and served as Chief Creative Officer. She appeared in court on January 20, 2004, and watched the proceedings throughout her trial. In addition to the testimony of Mr. Faneuil, Stewart’s friend Mariana Pasternak testified that Stewart told her Waksal was trying to dump his shares shortly after selling her ImClone stock. Ultimately, the jury did not believe the counterclaim by her broker, Peter Bacanovic, that he and Stuart had a prior agreement to sell ImClone if it went below $60. Although the judge dismissed the charge of securities fraud for insider trading, on March 5, 2004, the jury found Stewart guilty on one charge of conspiracy, one of obstruction of justice, and two of making false statements to investigators.

The announcement caused the share price of her company to sink by $2.77 to $11.26 on the NYSE. Stuart immediately posted the following on her website:

“I am obviously distressed by the jury’s verdict, but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have done nothing wrong and that I have the enduring support of my family and friends. I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail.”

Stuart was subsequently sentenced to 5 months in prison and 5 months of home detention-a lower than maximum sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines-and she did appeal. Although she could have remained free during the appeal, on September 15, 2004, she asked for her sentence to start immediately so she could be at home in time for the spring planting season. Martha’s appeal cited “prosecutorial misconduct, extraneous influences on the jury and erroneous evidentiary rulings and jury instructions” but on January 6, 2006, her conviction was upheld.

Stuart may continue to disagree with the verdict to this day but there is little doubt that the allegations and her subsequent convictions had a major impact on her personally, and on the fortunes of MSO and the shareholders that had faith in her and in her company. Assuming a value per share of $13.50 on June 12th, the decline to a low of $5.26 in early October 2003 represents a loss of market capitalization (reputation capital) of approximately $250 million, or 61 percent. The value of MSO’s shares did return to close at $35.51 on February 7, 2005, but fell off to under $20 in early 2006. Per a New York brand-rating company, the Martha Stewart brand reached a peak of 120 (the baseline is 100) in May 2002, and sank to a low of 63 in March 2004.

As my wife and I can attest, Stuart has returned to TV with a version of her usual homemaking and design shows, her new Martha Stewart Cooking School and related books.  Her products and magazines continue to be sold.  Still, what a catastrophe for so many to save just $45,000.