Category Archives: Fraud Response

The Human Financial Statement

A finance professor of mine in graduate school at the University of Richmond was fond of saying, in relation to financial statement fraud, that as staff competence goes down, the risk of fraud goes up. What she meant by that was that the best operated, most flawless control ever put in place can be tested and tested and tested again and score perfectly every time. But its still no match for the employee who doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t even care, how to operate that control; or for the manager who doesn’t read the output correctly, or for the executive who hides part of a report and changes the numbers in the rest. That’s why CFEs and the members of any fraud risk assessment team (especially our client managers who actually own the process and its results), should always take a careful look at the human component of risk; the real-world actions, and lack thereof, taken by real-life employees in addressing the day-to-day duties of their jobs.

ACFE training emphasizes that client management must evaluate whether it has implemented anti-fraud controls that adequately address the risk that a material misstatement in the financial statements will not be prevented or detected timely and then focus on fixing or developing controls to fill any gaps. The guidance offers several specific suggestions for conducting top-down, risk-based anti-fraud focused evaluations, and many of them require the active participation of staff drawn from all over the assessed enterprise. The ACFE documentation also recommends that management consider whether a control is manual or automated, its complexity, the risk of management override, and the judgment required to operate it. Moreover, it suggests that management consider the competence of the personnel who perform the control or monitor its performance.

That’s because the real risk of financial statement misstatements lies not in a company’s processes or the controls around them, but in the people behind the processes and controls who make the organization’s control environment such a dynamic, challenging piece of the corporate puzzle. Reports and papers that analyze fraud and misstatement risk use words like “mistakes” and “improprieties.” Automated controls don’t do anything “improper.” Properly programmed record-keeping and data management processes don’t make “mistakes.” People make mistakes, and people commit improprieties. Of course, human error has always been and will always be part of the fraud examiner’s universe, and an SEC-encouraged, top-down, risk-based assessment of a company’s control environment, with a view toward targeting the control processes that pose the greatest misstatement risk, falls nicely within most CFE’s existing operational ambit. The elevated role for CFEs, whether on staff or in independent private practice, in optionally conducting fraud risk evaluations offers our profession yet another chance to show its value.

Focusing on the human element of misstatement fraud risk is one important way our client companies can make significant progress in identifying their true financial statement and other fraud exposures. It also represents an opportunity for management to identify the weak links that could ultimately result in a misstatement, as well as for CFEs to make management’s evaluation process a much simpler task. I can remember reading many articles in the trade press these last years in which commentators have opined that dramatic corporate meltdowns like Wells Fargo are still happening today, under today’s increased regulatory strictures, because the controls involved in those frauds weren’t the problem, the people were. That is certainly true. Hence, smart risk assessors are integrating the performance information they come across in their risk assessments on soft controls into management’s more quantitative, control-related evaluation data to paint a far more vivid picture of what the risks look like. Often the risks will wear actual human faces. The biggest single factor in calculating restatement risk as a result of a fraud relates to the complexity of the control(s) in question and the amount of human judgment involved. The more complex a control, the more likely it is to require complicated input data and to involve highly technical calculations that make it difficult to determine from system output alone whether something is wrong with the process itself. Having more human judgment in the mix gives rise to greater apparent risk.

A computer will do exactly what you tell it to over and over; a human may not, but that’s what makes humans special, special and risky. In the case of controls, especially fraud prevention related controls, our human uniqueness can manifest as simple afternoon sleepiness or family financial troubles that prove too distracting to put aside during the workday. So many things can result in a mistaken judgment, and simple mistakes in judgment can be extremely material to the final financial statements.

CFEs, of course, aren’t in the business of grading client employees or of even commenting to them about their performance but whether the fraud risk assessment in question is related to financial report integrity or to any other issue, CFEs in making such assessments at management’s request need to consider the experience, training, quality, and capabilities of the people performing the most critical controls.

You can have a well-designed control, but if the person in charge doesn’t know, or care, what to do, that control won’t operate. And whether such a lack of ability, or of concern, is at play is a judgment call that assessing CFEs shouldn’t be afraid to make. A negative characterization of an employee’s capability doesn’t mean that employee is a bad worker, of course. It may simply mean he or she is new to the job, or it may reveal training problems in that employee’s department. CFEs proactively involved in fraud risk assessment need to keep in mind that, in some instances, competence may be so low that it results in greater risk. Both the complexity of a control and the judgment required to operate it are important. The ability to interweave notions of good and bad judgment into the fabric of a company’s overall fraud risk comes from CFEs experience doing exactly that on fraud examinations. A critical employee’s intangibles like conscientiousness, commitment, ethics and morals, and honesty, all come into play and either contribute to a stronger fraud control environment or cause it to deteriorate. CFEs need to be able, while acting as professional risk assessors, to challenge to management the quality, integrity, and motivation of employees at all levels of the organization.

Many companies conduct fraud-specific tests as a component of the fraud prevention program, and many of the most common forms of fraud can be detected by basic controls already in place. Indeed, fraud is a common concern throughout all routine audits, as opposed to the conduct of separate fraud-only audits. It can be argued that every internal control is a fraud deterrent control. But fraud still exists.

What CFEs have to offer to the risk assessment of financial statement and other frauds is their overall proficiency in fraud detection and the reality that they are well-versed in, and cognizant of, the risk of fraud in every given business process of the company; they are, therefore, well positioned to apply their best professional judgment to the assessment of the degree of risk of financial statement misstatement that fraud represents in any given client enterprise.

When You Assume

by Rumbi Petrozzello
2018 Vice President – Central Virginia ACFE Chapter

On November 8, 2007, in the small town of Constantine, Michigan, 11-year-old Jodi Parrack was reported missing. Residents from the surrounding region volunteered to search for the missing girl, including Ray McCann, a police reservist. During the search, Ray suggested to Jodi’s mother, Valerie, that they should search for Jodi in the local cemetery. Valerie and Ray did so and, tragically, found her daughter there; she had been murdered.

Almost immediately, Ray came under suspicion. His reaction to Jodi’s death appeared to some of the investigators to be suspicious and why had he suggested that he and Valerie go to the cemetery, of all places, to look for Jodi? Then, during their subsequent investigation, the police found Jodi’s DNA on Ray’s body; according to Ray this was because he had pulled Valerie away from Jodi when he and her mother discovered the child’s body.

For years, Ray was under suspicion. He was brought in for questioning by the police on multiple occasions, and his answers, as far as the police were concerned, were not particularly convincing. He claimed to have been in one place and the police said that there was proof that he was not there. Seven years after Jodi’s murder, Ray was arrested and charged with perjury, related to the answers he had originally given the police; this seems to have been a tactic the police employed to hold him while they continued to try to gather enough evidence to charge him with Jodi’s murder.

While Ray was being held and facing from two to twenty years behind bars, another girl was attacked; she fought back, escaped and led the police to another man, Daniel Furlong. It turned out that Furlong’s DNA had been found on Jodi’s body during the original investigation as well as Ray’s and yet, the police had persisted in focusing solely on Ray. It was also revealed that the authorities were not honest when they told Ray that they possessed evidence Ray was lying. All the police really had was a deeply held conviction that Ray was being deceptive, leading to their determination to somehow develop evidence to validate that feeling.

By the time Ray was released after spending 20 wasted months of his life behind bars, he had lost his job, his family and the trust of the community in which he lived and which he had hoped someday to serve.

As Fraud Examiners and/or Forensic Accountants, we are engaged to investigate alleged wrongdoing and to follow up on leads as we work to resolve often confusing and contradictory matters. As we seek evidence, interview people and try to figure out what happened and who did what, it can be all too easy to make the mistake of viewing a red flag as somehow constituting proof. If someone giggles when they’re telling you they know nothing; if a person taps her foot throughout an interview, or if someone is extremely helpful, none of those things in themselves means anything definitive in resolving the question as to whether or not they have done anything wrong, let alone illegal.

Professional skepticism is a CFE’s tendency not to believe or take anyone’s assertions at face value, a mental tendency to ask every assertion to “prove it” (with evidence). The inevitable occurrence of confusion, errors and deception in all situations involving actual or suspected fraud dictates this basic aspect of professional skepticism. Persuading a skeptical CFE or forensic accountant is not impossible, just somewhat more difficult than persuading a normal person in an everyday context. Our skepticism protects the Ray McCann’s of this world because it’s a manifestation of objectivity, holding no special concern for preconceived conclusions on any side of an issue. Skepticism is not an attitude of being cynical, hypercritical, or scornful. The properly skeptical investigator asks these questions (1) What do I need to know? (2) How well do I know it? (3) Does it make sense?

Professional skepticism should lead investigators to appropriate inquiry about every clue involving seeming wrong doing. Clues should lead to thinking about the evidence needed, wringing out all the implications from the evidence, then arriving at the most suitable and supportable explanation. Time pressure to complete an investigation is no excuse for failing to exercise professional skepticism and bias and prejudice are always unacceptable. Too many investigators (including auditors) have gotten themselves into trouble by accepting some respondent’s glib assertion and stopping too early in an investigation without seeking facts supportive of alternative explanations.

A red flag means only that further investigation is warranted; it definitely does not mean that the examiner should shut down all other avenues of investigation and it certainly does not mean that an attempt should ever be made to make the crime fit the person. In the sad case of Ray McCann, the police continued to pursue him to the exclusion of all others even though they had found someone else’s DNA on Jodi’s body. They never appeared to be even looking for any other suspect. Even when Daniel Furlong subsequently confessed to murdering Jodi, the local authorities still persisted in implying that Ray was somehow connected to the crime; in the face of all contradictory evidence, the police still stubbornly refused to let go of their original hypothesis.

As we pursue our work as forensic accountants and fraud examiners, we should be constantly reviewing our hypotheses and assessing our approaches.

• Are we trying to make evidence fit the facts as we initially suppose them to be?
• Are we ignoring evidence because it does not fit the story we’re trying to tell?
• Are we letting a particular person’s behavior cloud a more objective judgment of the totality of what’s going on?

Often, even after a person has been cleared of suspicion in a case, we hear parties involved in the investigation make statements along the lines of, “I just know they are good for something.” Fortunately, our practice is not founded on feelings and gut instincts; our practice, and profession, is one that relies on evidence. As you’re investigating a matter, keep in mind:

• Following your defined process and procedure throughout is paramount to investigative success. Even if someone or some aspect of a case looks totally transparent within the context of the investigation, be thorough and follow your evidence all the way through.

• If your findings do not support your original premise, don’t try to force things. Step back and ask yourself why this is the case. Ask yourself if you need to reconsider your foundational hypothesis.

• Beware of confirmation bias – that is be careful that you are not looking only for data that reinforces the conclusion(s) that you have already reached (and, in so doing, ignoring anything that might prove contradictory).

• Even if your team is determined to work the assignment in a particular direction, make sure you speak up and let them know about any reservations you might have. You may not have the popular position, but you may end up expressing the critical position if it turns out that there is other evidence in light of which the conclusions the team has made need to be adjusted.

In summary, when you feel it in your gut and you are absolutely sure that you are right about a hypothesis, it’s very difficult to look beyond your conviction and to see or even consider other options. It’s vital that you do so since, as the ACFE has pointed out so many times, there is a hefty price to be paid professionally for ignoring evidence which eventually proves to be critical simply because it appears not to corroborate your case. Due professional care requires a disposition to question all material assertions made by all respondents involved in the case whether oral or written. This attitude must be balanced with an open mind about the integrity of all concerned. We CFEs should neither blindly assume that everyone is dishonest nor thoughtlessly assume that those involved in our investigations are not ethically challenged. The key lies in the examiner’s attitude toward gathering the evidence necessary to reach reasonable and supportable investigative decisions.

Using Control to Foster a Culture of Honesty

One of the most frequent questions we seem to receive as practicing CFEs from clients and corporate counsel alike regards the proactive steps management can take to create what’s commonly designated a ‘culture of honesty’. What kinds of programs and controls can an entity implement to create such a culture and to prevent fraud?

The potential of being caught most often persuades likely perpetrators not to commit a contemplated fraud. As the ACFE has long told us, because of this principle, the existence of a thorough control system is essential to any effective program of fraud prevention and constitutes one of the most vital underpinnings of an honest culture.

Corporations and other organizations can be held liable for criminal acts committed as a matter of organizational policy. Fortunately, most organizations do not expressly set out to break the law. However, corporations and other organizations may also be held liable for the criminal acts of their employees if those acts are perpetrated in the course and scope of their employment and for the ostensible purpose of benefiting the corporation. An employee’s acts are considered to be in the course and scope of employment if the employee has actual authority or apparent authority to engage in those acts. Apparent authority means that a third party would reasonably believe the employee is authorized to perform the act on behalf of the company. Therefore, an organization could be held liable for something an employee does on behalf of the organization even if the employee is not authorized to perform that act.

An organization will not be vicariously liable for the acts of an employee unless the employee acted for the ostensible purpose of benefiting the corporation. This does not mean the corporation has to receive an actual benefit from the illegal acts of its employee. All that is required is that the employee intended to benefit the corporation. A company cannot seek to avoid vicarious liability for the acts of its employees by simply claiming that it did not know what was going on. Legally speaking, an organization is deemed to have knowledge of all facts known by its officers and employees. That is, if a prosecutor can prove that an officer or employee knew of conduct that raised a question as to the company’s liability, and the prosecutor can show that the company willfully failed to act to correct the situation, then the company may be held liable, even if senior management had no knowledge or suspicion of the wrongdoing.

In addition, the evolving legal principle of ‘conscious avoidance’ allows the government to prove the employer had knowledge of a particular fact which establishes liability by showing that the employer knew there was a high probability the fact existed and consciously avoided confirming the fact. Employers cannot simply turn a blind eye when there is reason to believe that there may be criminal conduct within the organization. If steps are not taken to deter the activity, the company itself may be found liable. The corporation can be held criminally responsible even if those in management had no knowledge of participation in the underlying criminal events and even if there were specific policies or instructions prohibiting the activity undertaken by the employee(s). The acts of any employee, from the lowest clerk on up to the CEO, can impute liability upon a corporation. In fact, a corporation can be criminally responsible for the collective knowledge of several of its employees even if no single employee intended to commit an offense. Thus, the combination of vicarious or imputed corporate criminal liability and the current U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations can create a risk for corporations today.

Although many of our client companies do not realize it, the current legal environment imposes a responsibility on companies to ferret out employee misconduct and to deal with any known or suspected instances of misconduct by taking timely and decisive measures.

First, the doctrine of accountability suggests that officers and directors aware of potentially illegal conduct by senior employees may be liable for any recurrence of similar misconduct and may have an obligation to halt and cure any continuing effects of the initial misconduct.

Second, the Corporate Sentencing Guidelines, provide stiff penalties for corporations that fail to take voluntary action to redress apparent misconduct by senior employees.

Third, the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act requires, as a matter of statute, that independent auditors look for, and assess, management’s response to indications of fraud or other potential illegality. Where the corporation does not have a history of responding to indications of wrongdoing, the auditors may not be able to reach a conclusion that the company took appropriate and prompt action in response to indications of fraud.

Fourth, courts have held that a director’s duty of care includes a duty to attempt in good faith to assure corporate information and reporting systems exist. These systems must be reasonably designed to provide senior management and the board of directors timely, accurate information which would permit them to reach informed judgments concerning the corporation’s compliance with law and its business performance. In addition, courts have also stated that the failure to create an adequate compliance system, under some circumstances, could render a director liable for losses caused by non-compliance with applicable legal standards. Therefore, directors should make sure that their companies have a corporate compliance plan in place to detect misconduct and deal with it effectively. The directors should then monitor the company’s adherence to the compliance program. Doing so will help the corporation avoid fines under the Sentencing Guidelines and help prevent individual liability on the part of the directors and officers.

The control environment sets the moral tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of the organization and providing a foundation for all other control components. This component considers whether managers and employees within the organization exhibit integrity in their activities. COSO envisions that upper management will be responsible for the control environment of organizations. Employees look to management for guidance in most business affairs, and organizational ethics are no different. It is important for upper management to operate in an ethical manner, and it is equally important for employees to view management in a positive light. Managers must set an appropriate moral tone for the operations of an organization.

In addition to merely setting a good example, however, COSO suggests that upper management take direct control of an organization’s efforts at internal controls. This idea should be regularly reinforced within the organization. There are several actions that management can take to establish the proper control environment for an organization and foster a culture of honesty. These include:

–The establishment of a code of ethics for the organization. The code should be disseminated to all employees and every new employee should be required to read and sign it. The code should also be disseminated to contractors who do work on behalf of the organization. Under certain circumstances, companies may face liability due to the actions of independent contractors. It is therefore very important to explain the organization’s standards to any outside party with whom the organization conducts business.

–Careful screening of job applicants. One of the easiest ways to establish a strong moral tone for an organization is to hire morally sound employees. Too often, the hiring process is conducted in a slipshod manner. Organizations should conduct thorough background checks on all new employees, especially managers. In addition, it is important to conduct thorough interviews with applicants to ensure that they have adequate skills to perform the duties that will be required of them.

–Proper assignment of authority and responsibility. In addition to hiring qualified, ethical employees, it is important to put these people in situations where they are able to thrive without resorting to unethical conduct. Organizations should provide employees with well-defined job descriptions and performance goals. Performance goals should be routinely reviewed to ensure that they do not set unrealistic standards. Training should be provided on a consistent basis to ensure that employees maintain the skills to perform effectively. Regular training on ethics will also help employees identify potential trouble spots and avoid getting caught in compromising situations. Finally, management should quickly determine where deficiencies in an employee’s conduct exist and work with the employee to fix the problem.

–Effective disciplinary measures. No control environment will be effective unless there is consistent discipline for ethical violations. Consistent discipline requires a well-defined set of sanctions for violations, and strict adherence to the prescribed disciplinary measures. If one employee is punished for an act and another employee is not punished for a similar act, the moral force of the company’s ethics policy will be diminished. The levels of discipline must be sufficient to deter violations. It may also be advisable to reward ethical conduct. This will reinforce the importance of organizational ethics in the eyes of employees.

Monitoring is the process that assesses the quality of a control environment over time. This component should include regular evaluations of the entire control system. It also requires the ongoing monitoring of day-to-day activities by managers and employees. This may involve reviewing the accuracy of financial information, or verifying inventories, supplies, equipment and other organization assets. Finally, organizations should conduct independent evaluations of their internal control systems. An effective monitoring system should provide for the free flow of upstream communication.

A Ship of Fools

Our Chapter’s January-February 2018 lecture for CPE credit is concerned with the broader ethical implications of the types of fraud, many interlocking and coordinated, that made up the 2007-2008 Great Recession.  At the center of the scandal were ethically challenged actions by bank managements and their boards, but also by the investment companies and ratings agencies, who not only initiated much of the fraud and deception but, in many cases, actively expanded and perpetuated it.

Little more than a glance at the historical record confirms that deception by bank executives of regulators and of their own investors about illegal activity or about the institution’s true financial condition to conceal poor performance, poor management, or questionable transactions is not new to the world of U.S. finance. In fact, it was a key practice during the meltdown of the financial markets in 2007. In addition, the period saw heated debate about alleged deception by the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch, of major institutional investors, who depended on the agencies’ valuations of subprime-backed securities in the making of investment decisions. Thus, not only deceptive borrowers and unscrupulous mortgage brokers and appraisers contributed to the meltdown. The maelstrom of lies and deception that drove the entire U.S. financial system in mid to late 2005 accelerated to the point of no return, and the crisis that ensued proved unavoidable.

There were ample instances of bank deception in the years leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The facts came out with considerable drama and fanfare through the work of the era’s Pecora Commission. However, the breadth and scope of executive deception that came under the legal and regulatory microscope following the financial market collapse of 2007 to 2009 represent some of history’s most brazen cases of concealment of irresponsible lending practices, fraudulent underwriting, shady financial transactions, and intentionally false statements to investors, federal regulators, and investigators.

According to the ACFE and other analysts, the lion’s share of direct blame for the meltdown lies with top executives of the major banks, investment firms, and rating agencies. They charge the commercial bank bosses with perpetuating a boom in reckless mortgage lending and the investment bankers with essentially tricking institutional investors into buying the exotic derivative securities backed by the millions and millions of toxic mortgages sold off by the mortgage lenders. The commercial bank bosses and investment bankers were, according to these observers, aided and abetted by the rating agencies, which lowered their rating standards on high-risk mortgage-backed securities that should never have received investment-grade ratings but did so because the rating agencies were paid by the very investment banks which issued the bonds. The agencies reportedly feared losing business if they gave poor ratings to the securities.

As many CFEs know, fraud is always the principal credit risk of any nonprime mortgage lending operation. It’s impossible in practice to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed, and the images are stored on computer tapes. Unfortunately, most investors (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased non-prime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) didn’t review the loan files before purchasing them and did not even require the original lenders to provide them with the loan tapes requisite for subsequent review and audit.

The rating agencies also never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. The “AAA’ rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk, the risk being thought equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which the finance industry refers to as “risk-free.”  The rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to the stars. Turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain, and sustain, those profit levels. If they had engaged forensic accountants to review even small samples of nonprime loans, they would have been confronted with only two real choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the associated nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they themselves were committing, aiding and abetting, a blatant accounting fraud.

A statement made during the 2008 House of Representatives hearings on the topic of the rating agencies’ role in the crisis represents an apt summary of how the financial and government communities viewed the actions and attitudes of the three rating agencies in the years leading up to the subprime crisis. An S&P employee, testified that “the rating agencies continue to create an even bigger monster, the CDO [collateralized debt obligation] market. Let’s hope we all are wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.”

With respect to bank executives, the examples of proved and alleged deception during the period are so numerous as to almost defy belief. Among the most noteworthy are:

–The SEC investigated Citigroup as to whether it misled investors by failing to disclose critical details about the troubled mortgage assets it was holding as the financial markets began to collapse in 2007. The investigation came only after some of the mortgage-related securities being held by Citigroup were downgraded by an independent rating agency. Shortly thereafter, Citigroup announced quarterly losses of around $10 billion on its subprime-mortgage holdings, an astounding amount that directly contributed to the resignation of then CEO, Charles Prince;

–The SEC conducted similar investigations into Bank of America, now-defunct Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch (now a part of Bank of America);

–The SEC filed civil fraud charges against Angelo Mozilo, cofounder and former CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp. In the highest-profile government legal action against a chief executive related to the financial crisis, the SEC charged Mozilo with insider trading and alleged failure to disclose material information to shareholders, according to people familiar with the matter. Mozilo sold $130 million of Countrywide stock in the first half of 2007 under an executive sales plan, according to government filings.

As the ACFE points out, every financial services company has its own unique internal structure and management policies. Some are more effective than others in reducing the risk of management-level fraud. The best anti-fraud controls are those designed to reduce the risk of a specific type of fraud threatening the organization.  Designing effective anti-fraud controls depends directly on accurate assessment of those risks. How, after all, can management or the board be expected to design and implement effective controls if it is unclear about which frauds are most threatening? That’s why a fraud risk assessment (FRA) is essential to any anti-fraud  Program; an essential exercise designed to determine the specific types of fraud to which your client organization is most vulnerable within the context of its existing anti-fraud controls. This enables management to design, customize, and implement the best controls to minimize fraud risk throughout the organization.  Again, according to the ACFE (joined by the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), an organization’s contracted CFEs backed by its own internal audit team can play a direct role in this all-important effort.

Your client’s internal auditors should consider the organization’s assessment of fraud risk when developing their annual audit plan and review management’s fraud management capabilities periodically. They should interview and communicate regularly with those conducting the organization’s risk assessments, as well as with others in key positions throughout the organization, to help them ensure that all fraud risks have been considered appropriately. When performing proactive fraud risk assessment engagements, CFEs should direct adequate time and attention to evaluating the design and operation of internal controls specifically related to fraud risk management. We should exercise professional skepticism when reviewing activities and be on guard for the tell-tale signs of fraud. Suspected frauds uncovered during an engagement should be treated in accordance with a well-designed response plan consistent with professional and legal standards.

As this month’s lecture recommends, CFEs and forensic accountants can also contribute value by proactively taking a proactive role in support of the organization’s underlying ethical culture.

Navigating the Cloud

I’ve read several articles in the trade press recently that indicate CFEs are finding some aspects of fraud investigations involving cloud based data to be especially challenging. This is a consequent follow-on of the uncontested fact that, for many organizations, cloud based computing does improve performance and dramatically reduces a wide range of IT and administrative costs.

Commissioning a cloud service provider can enable an organization to off-load much of the difficulty that comes with implementing, maintaining, and physically protecting the systems required for company operations. The organization no longer needs to employ such a large team of network engineers, database administrators, developers, and other technical staff. Instead, it can use smaller, in-house teams to maintain the cloud solution and keep everything running as anticipated. Moving to the cloud also can introduce new capabilities, such as the ability to add and remove servers based on seasonal demand, an option that would be impractical for a traditional data center.

Now that cloud computing has become a mainstream service, CFEs and forensic accountants are increasingly called upon to assess the cloud environment with an eye to devising innovative approaches to cope with the unique investigative features and risks these services pose while at the same time grappling with the effects on their examinations of the security, reliability and availability of critical data housed by their client’s outside IT provider. Based on this assessment, CFEs can advise their client organizations in how best to meet the new investigative challenges when the inevitable cloud involved fraud strikes.

The cloud encompasses application service providers, cloud infrastructure, and the virtual placement of a server, set of servers, or other set of computing power in an environment that is shared among many entities and organizations. Cloud platforms and servers extend and supplement an organization’s own servers, resulting in multiple options for computing and application hosting. It is not sufficient to think of cloud platform and infrastructure oversight as mere vendor management.  Fraud examinations involving these environments are more complex, because of several factors about which the investigative team needs to make decisions  when determining the structure of the examination.

The ACFE tells us that a cloud deployment can be just as variable in structure and architecture as a traditional IT implementation. Among the numerous cloud platforms confronting the CFE, the most common are infrastructure as a service, software as a service, and platform as a service. The employment of these three options alone makes a wide variety of models and other options available. Each of these options additionally poses a distinct set of fraud risks and preventative controls, depending on a client organization’s specific deployment of a particular cloud platform and infrastructure.

Many challenges and barriers to an unfettered examination can appear when the CFEs client organization has contracted with a cloud provider who is, in actual form, a third-party vendor. In some cases, reviewing the cloud service provider’s processes and infrastructure might not be allowed by contract. In its place, the vendor may offer attestation reports such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA’s) Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 16 (SSAE 16) as evidence of organizational controls. In other cases, the provider might restrict the examination to a select portion of the service which can be problematic when the CFE is working to obtain an overview of a complex fraud. Further, providers often require the client to obtain specific approvals before any fraud examination activities can even begin. Ideally, client organizations should take these types of consideration into account before contracting with a cloud vendor, but such consideration is, for the most part, not realistic unless a client organization has historically experienced a large number of frauds.  Fraud is, most often, not usually the first thing on many client’s minds when initially contracting with a cloud service provider.

One of the most difficult aspects of the fraud examination of a cloud infrastructure deployment is determining which fraud prevention controls are currently managed by the client organization and which by the cloud provider. With many cloud deployments, few controls are the actual responsibility of the provider. For example, the CFEs client may be responsible for configuration management, patch management, and access management, while the provider is only responsible for physical and environmental security.

A client organization’s physical assets are tangible. The organization buys a physical piece of equipment and keeps a record of this asset; a CFE can see all the organization’s technology assets just by walking through the data center. Cloud infrastructure deployments, however, are virtual, and it’s easy to add and remove these systems. Many organizations base their models on servers and systems that are there one day and gone the next. IT departments themselves also struggle with managing cloud assets, and tools to help cloud providers and clients are continually evolving. As a result, from the CFEs perspective, the examination scope can be hard to manage and execute.  The CFE is also confronted with the fact that, because cloud computing is a relatively recent and fast-growing technology service, a client organization’s employees themselves may not possess much cloud expertise. This scarcity creates risks to the CFEs examination because IT administrators often aren’t positioned to fully explain the details of the cloud deployment and structure so critical details bearing on the fraud under investigation may not be adequately documented. Also, migrating from facilities that are operating internally to cloud-based services can dramatically alter the fraud risk profile of any organization. For example, when an organization moves to a cloud based service, in most cases, all its data is stored on the same physical equipment where other organizations’ data is housed. If configured inappropriately, data leaks can result.

Interacting with the client organization’s IT and management is the CFEs first step toward understanding how the organization’s cloud strategy is or is not related to the circumstances of the fraud under investigation. How did the organization originally expect to use the cloud and how is it using it in actual practice? What are the benefits and drawbacks of using it the way it uses it? What is the scope, from a fraud prevention and security perspective, of the organization’s cloud deployment? The lack of a cohesive, formal, and well-aligned cloud infrastructure strategy should be a red flag for the CFE as a possible contributing factor in any fraud involving cloud computing services.

The second step is CFE review of the client’s security program (or lack thereof) itself.  IT departments and business units should ideally have a cloud security strategy available for CFE review. Such a strategy includes determining the type of data permissible to store in the cloud and how its security will be enforced. It also includes the integration of the information security program into the cloud. All the usual IT risks of traditional data centers apply to cloud deployment as well, among them, malware propagation, denial of service attacks, data breaches, and identity theft, all of which, depending on the implementation, can fall on either party to the contract.  Professionals who have received training in cloud computing may or may not be able to adapt traditional IT programs for fraud examination of servers in physical form to a cloud environment.

There is good news for the examining CFE, however. Cloud infrastructure brings with it myriad security technologies useful to the CFE in conducting his or her examination that are not affordable in most traditional deployments from real-time, chronological reports on suspect activities related to identity and access management systems, to network segmentation, and multifactor authentication.

In summary, CFEs and forensic accountants should not approach a cloud involved engagement in the same way they approach other fraud examinations involving third-party vendors. Cloud engagements present their own complexities, which CFEs should attempt to understand and assess adequately. SSAE 16 and other attestation reports based on audit and attestation standards can be valuable as informational background to examination of a fraud involving cloud services.  CFEs can help as a profession by reinforcing client community understanding that a correctly implemented cloud infrastructure can reduce a client organization’s residual risk of fraud by offloading a portion of the responsibility for managing IT risks to a cloud service provider. CFEs have a valuable opportunity to see that their client organizations benefit from the cloud while adequately addressing the new fraud risks that are introduced when their clients contract with a service provider and move IT operations to the cloud. Applying the same level of rigor to examinations involving cloud technology that they apply to technology managed in-house creates an environment in which the CFE and forensic accounting professions can be primary advocates for strong cloud strategy implemented within the structure of the client organization’s fraud prevention program.

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.

First Steps to Prosecution

A recent study sponsored by the financial trade press indicated some haziness among assurance professionals generally about the precise mechanism(s) underlying the process by which the authorities make the initial decision to prosecute or not to prosecute alleged financial statement fraud.

In the U.S. federal system, a criminal investigation of fraudulent financial reporting can originate in all sorts of ways. An investigation may be initiated because of a whistleblower, an anonymous tip, information supplied by a conscientious or guilt-ridden employee, or facts discovered during a routine annual audit of the company’s financial statements. In addition, the company’s public disclosure of financial misstatements may itself lead to the commencement of a criminal investigation. However initially initiated, the decision to start a criminal investigation is entirely within the discretion of the United States Attorney in each federal district.

For the prosecutor, the decision whether to open an investigation can be difficult. The main reason is the need for the prosecutor to establish criminal intent, that is, that the perpetrator not only got the accounting wrong but did so willfully. Often, bad accounting will be the result of judgment calls, which can be defended as exactly that, executive determinations or judgement calls that, while easy to second guess with the benefit of hindsight, were made in good faith at the time. Thus, a prosecutor evaluating the viability of a criminal prosecution will be looking for evidence of conduct so egregious that the perpetrator must have known it was wrong. This is not to suggest that evidence of a wrongful intent is the only consideration. A prosecutor’s exercise of his or her prosecutorial discretion may consider all kinds of factors in deciding whether criminal inquiry is warranted. Those factors may include the magnitude and nature of the accounting misstatements, whether individuals personally benefited from the misstatements or acted pursuant to the directive of a superior, whether documents were fabricated or destroyed, the probable deterrent or rehabilitative effect of prosecution, and the likelihood of success at trial. The availability of governmental resources may also be a factor.

Where the putative defendant is a corporation, partnership, or other business organization, a more settled set of factors come into play:

–The nature and seriousness of the offense, including the risk of harm to the public, and applicable policies and priorities, if any, governing the prosecution of corporations for certain categories of crime;
–The pervasiveness of wrongdoing within the corporation, including the complicity in, or the condoning of, the wrongdoing by corporate management;
–The corporation’s history of similar misconduct, including prior criminal, civil, and regulatory enforcement actions against it;
–The corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrong-doing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents;
–The existence and effectiveness of the corporation’s preexisting compliance program;
–The corporation’s remedial actions, including any efforts to implement an effective corporate compliance program or to improve an existing one, to replace responsible management, to discipline or terminate wrongdoers, to pay restitution, and to cooperate with the relevant government agencies;
–Collateral consequences, including whether there is disproportionate harm to shareholders, pension holders, employees, and others not proven personally culpable, as well as the impact on the public arising from the prosecution;
–The adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance;
–The adequacy of remedies such as civil or regulatory enforcement actions.

However, a prosecutor gets there, once s/he determines to commence a criminal investigation, there is no doubt that those who are its targets will quickly come to view it as a priority over everything else. The government’s powers to investigate are broad, and, once a determination to go forward is made, the full resources of the government, including the FBI, can be brought to bear. The criminal sentences resulting from a successful prosecution can be severe if not excessive, particularly considering the enhanced criminal sentences put in place by Sarbanes-Oxley.  The ACFE reports that one midlevel executive at a company who elected to proceed to trial was convicted and received a prison sentence of 24 years. The fact that the sentence was subsequently set aside on appeal does little to mitigate the concern that such a sentence could be imposed upon a first-time, nonviolent offender whose transgression was a failure to apply generally accepted accounting principles.

Typically, a company learns that it is involved in a criminal investigation when it receives a grand jury subpoena, in most instances a subpoena duces tecum, compelling the company or its employees to furnish documents to the grand jury. In an investigation of fraudulent financial reporting, such a subpoena for documents may encompass all the files underlying the company’s publicly disseminated financial information, including the records underlying the transactions at issue and related emails.

For a CFE’s client company counsel and for the company’s executives generally, the need to respond to the subpoena presents both an opportunity and a dilemma. The opportunity stems from the company’s ability, in responding to the subpoena, to learn about the investigation, an education process that will be critical to a successful criminal defense. The dilemma stems from the need to assess the extent to which active and complete cooperation should be pledged to the prosecutor at the outset. The formulation of a response to a criminal subpoena, therefore, constitutes a critical point in the investigatory process. Those involved are thereby placed in the position of needing to make important decisions at an early stage that can have lasting and significant effects.  The CFE can support them in getting through this process.

Once an initial review of the subpoena and its underlying substance is complete, one of the first steps in formulating a response is often for company counsel to make a phone call to the prosecutor to make appropriate introductions and, to the extent possible, to seek background information regarding the investigation. In this initial contact, the prosecutor will be understandably guarded. Nonetheless, some useful information will frequently be shared. A general impression may be gained about the scope and focus of the investigation and the timing of additional subpoenas and testimony. Thereafter, it is not unusual for an initial meeting to be arranged to discuss in greater detail the company’s response. One benefit of such a meeting is that some level of additional information may be forthcoming.

From the outset, company counsel will be undertaking a process that will be ongoing throughout the criminal proceedings: learning as much as possible about the prosecutor’s case. The reason is that, unlike a civil case, in which broad principles of discovery enable the defendants to learn the details of the adversary’s evidence, the procedural rules of a criminal investigation result in much greater secrecy. Less formal methods of learning the details of the prosecutor’s case, therefore, are critical. In these initial contacts, the establishment of a sound foundation for the company’s dealings with the prosecutor is an important aspect of the investigation. To state it simply, CFE’s should always support that those dealings be premised on a foundation of candor.

Although it may be appropriate at various stages to decline to discuss sensitive matters, counsel should avoid making a factual statement on any subject about which it may be incompletely or inaccurately informed. This admonition applies to subjects such as the existence and location of files, the burden of producing documents, and the availability of witnesses. It also applies to more substantive matters bearing on the guilt or innocence of parties. CFE’s should, again, counsel their clients that a relationship with the prosecutor based on trust and confidence is key.

The judgment regarding the extent of cooperation with the prosecutor can be a tough one. Unlike in a civil proceeding, where cooperation with regulatory authorities (such as the SEC) is generally the preferred approach, the decision to cooperate with the government in a criminal investigation may be much more difficult, insofar as a subsequent effort to oppose the government (should such a change of approach be necessary) would be impeded by the loss of a significant tactical advantage, the loss of surprise. In criminal cases, the government is not afforded the same broad rights of discovery available in civil proceedings. It is entirely possible for a prosecutor to have no significant knowledge of the defense position until after the start of a trial. On the other hand, the privileges available to a corporation are limited. There is, most importantly, no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for companies.  Furthermore, almost any kind of evidence, even evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, except for illegal wiretaps or privileged material, can be considered by a grand jury. Therefore, the company’s ability to oppose a grand jury investigation is limited, and the prosecutor may even consider a company’s extensive zeal in opposition to constitute obstruction of justice. Moreover, the prosecutor’s ultimate decision about indictment of the company may be affected by the extent of the company’s cooperation. And corporate management may wish to demonstrate cooperation as a matter of policy or public relations.

One issue with which a company will need to wrestle is whether it is appropriate for a public company or its executives to do anything other than cooperate with the government. On this issue, it is useful for executives to appreciate that the U.S. system of justice affords those being investigated certain fundamental rights, and it is not unpatriotic to take advantage of them. As to individuals, one of the most basic of these rights is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Insofar as, in fraud cases, guilt can be established through circumstantial evidence, executives need to keep in mind that it demonstrates no lack of civic virtue to take full advantage of constitutional protections designed to protect the innocent.

A challenge is that many of these judgments regarding cooperation must be made at the outset when the company’s information is limited. Often the best approach, at least as a threshold matter, will be one of courteous professionalism, meaning respect for one’s adversary and reasonable accommodation pending more informed judgments down the road. Premature expressions of complete cooperation are best avoided as a subsequent change in approach can give rise to governmental frustration and anger.

Following the initial steps of the grand jury subpoena and the preliminary contact with the prosecutor, CFE’s are uniquely positioned to assist corporate counsel and management in the remaining stages of the criminal investigation of a financial crime:

–Production of documents;
–Grand jury testimony;
–Plea negotiations (if necessary);
–Trial (if necessary).