The paper "Fraud Examination and Management" is a wonderful example of an assignment on management. According to Ernst & Young, 1996, Fraud is an intentional act or omission designed to deceive others, hence the victim suffers a loss and or the person perpetrating the act gains. Question 1 What clues caused Jane to suspect that fraud was involved There were some accounts payable checks that lacked complete endorsement by the payees. Further, fraud was suspected since the checks were payable to dual payees and it was important that the endorsement of each payee be obtained. Besides, the handwriting on the checks was similar in all checks although the names are written were different.
Further doubts mounted when she realized that the checks were cashed at the same convenient place which was less than five miles away while the mailing address in one of the checks was over two hundred miles away. She further noticed that there were no supporting documents for the payments. Worse still, there were other payments made to the same payees but the names were different from those on the endorsement document. This entire aspect made Jane suspect that fraud was involved in that firm. Why is it important for fraud examiners to follow up on even the smallest inconsistencies Fraud is a universal evil that affects everyone and it is of critical concern to those who manage organizations to follow up any small inconsistency especially in the finance department.
This is for the sole reason that the losses involved are greatest and thus the need to control and prevent fraud is necessary as soon as any suspicions are made. Before making any legal move, the fraud examiners follow up on the inconsistencies keenly in order to establish a strong basis of evidence in regards to the nature of fraud in question.
The little indicators lead to greater realizations of fraud masterminds within an organization that may have operated for a long period without and suspicion. For instance, Jane followed up the endorsement question and finally came with adequate evidence of fraud in the company that led to obtaining an affidavit of forgery. Therefore, a small indicator should not be ignored because it is a guideline to more evidence when closely examined.
Clemency, J. (2002). "Corporate Fraud: Where Should the Buck Really Stop?" American
Bankruptcy Institute Journal 21 (November).
Deakin University (1994). Fraud against Organizations in Victoria, Deakin University, Geelong.
Duncan, M. (1996). “Counterfeiting in a technological society”, International
Criminal Police Review, no. 456, pp. 18-21.
Dyson, C. & McKenzie, D. (1996). Guidelines to Fraud Prevention, New South Wales
Police Service, Fraud Enforcement Agency, Sydney.
Ernst & Young (1996). Fraud: The Unmanaged Risk, Ernst & Young, London.
Pidco, G. (1996). “Check print: A discussion of a crime prevention initiative that failed”,
Security Journal, vol. 7, pp. 37-40.
Ribstein, L. (2002). "Market vs. Regulatory Responses to Corporate Fraud: A Critique of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002." Journal of Corporation Law 28 (fall).