Category Archives: Corporate Governance

Skilled for Success

Our Chapter is periodically contacted by human resource staff and others seeking CFEs for recruitment to both in-house staff and management positions. I took the opportunity afforded by one such call this last week to query the caller about what her ideal CFE candidate would look like. What attributes came to mind when she pictured the experienced CFE she was seeking? Technical ability? Investigative knowledge? Attention to detail?

All of those were certainly important, she said, but since this position would supervise others and deal directly with clients, she mentioned what she called ‘success skills’ (sometimes termed soft skills) as of over-riding importance. I asked her what she meant by success skills specifically and she said that for her and for many other human resource professionals, the culture of the organization she is recruiting for and the professional’s interpersonal behaviors and critical reasoning and judgment can frequently heavily outweigh technical skills and relevant experience. After I referred her to several folks who had furnished our Chapter with resumes for just this kind of enquiry, my caller pointed me to several sources where I could obtain information on the types of skills to which she was referring.

My somewhat cursory research revealed that some of the most common success skills employers look for and which they use to assess experienced employment candidate CFEs today include:

1. A strong work ethic — are they motivated and dedicated to getting the job done, no matter what? Will they be conscientious and do their best work?
2. A positive attitude — are they optimistic and upbeat? Will they generate good energy and good will especially with subordinates and clients?
3. Good communication skills — are they verbally articulate and good listeners? Can they make their case and express their needs in a way that builds bridges with colleagues, clients and team members?
4. Time management abilities – does the CFE candidate know how to prioritize tasks and work on a number of different projects at once? Will they use their time on the job wisely?
5. Problem-solving skills — are they resourceful and able to creatively solve problems that will inevitably arise during challenging investigations? Will they take ownership of problems or leave them for someone else?
6. Being a team player — will they work well in groups and teams? Will they be cooperative and take a leadership role when appropriate?
7. Self-confidence — do they truly believe they can do the job? Will they project a sense of calm and inspire confidence in others during investigative assignments? Will they have the courage to ask the questions that need to be asked and to freely contribute their ideas?
8. Ability to accept and learn from criticism — will they be able to handle criticism? Are they coachable and open to learning and growing as a person and as a professional no matter their present experience and authority level?
9. Flexibility/adaptability — are they able to adapt to new situations and challenges? Will they embrace change and be open to innovative ideas and investigative approaches?
10. Working well under pressure — can they handle the stress that accompanies investigative and reporting deadlines and crises? Will they be able to do their best work and come through for the employer in a pinch?

Armed with this information, I got back in touch with my caller and asked a few more questions; she was very forthcoming. It turns out that there is a wide range of questions interviewers can ask when trying to gauge the soft skills of a potential CFE hire. When it comes to interpersonal skills, my interviewee told me they may ask candidates to describe an unusual person they know and why the person may be different. Communication skills can be determined by having candidates relate their experiences with an angry or frustrated corporate counsel, client, coworker or interviewee. A popular question that is often asked to measure the ability of a candidate to work on a team is centered on the discussion of an investigative project that was not successful and how it was handled. The question of solutions to problems may also deal with negative situations and how they were overcome. Therefore, questions used to assess success skills often have an individual addressing the how and why, rather than what, where or who.

The next question I had for my respondent was regarding her opinion as to how a candidate CFE could go about acquiring and strengthening these skills since they really don’t involve the type of technical matters typically focused on in the everyday business school training curriculum. She replied that working with people who exhibit strong soft skills is an effective way of learning those skills. Many professional organizations like the ACFE run internal mentoring programs so that senior practitioners can pass on their knowledge and experience to newer professionals. Training events of local chapters of associations such as the ACFE are another good place to meet with experienced professionals who can assist with mentoring and soft skills.

It seems to me that success skill communication especially under-pin all aspects of the CFEs work. I can remember very early on in my auditing career reading that communication is not easy because something said doesn’t mean it was said correctly; something said correctly doesn’t
mean it has been heard; something heard doesn’t mean it was understood; something understood doesn’t mean it has been agreed upon; something agreed upon doesn’t mean it has been applied; something applied doesn’t mean it has been continually practiced. Communicating anything effectively as a professional is, therefore, an on-going continuous process that is almost never complete and seldom perfect.

The desire to grow professionally and develop a successful career is evident in most CFEs, as in all other professionals, and while the opportunity to be on the forefront of this challenge exists, it is not emphasized enough, hence what recruiters and human resource professionals have identified as the success skills gap. Critical success skills, such as interpersonal behavior, communication, report writing and presentation skills, that augment technical skills are important in developing a successful career. However, to the disadvantage of employees, especially young professionals, these skills are seldom even emphasized let alone actively taught in the typical workplace. Similarly, employees do not recognize the lack of or need for such skills and miss valuable opportunities to improve them.

In an increasingly information- and technology-driven society, success skills increasingly shape the structure of the workplace. This fact is found to be especially evident in the audit, investigative and information systems environments. Assurance professionals need to interact seamlessly with customers/clients, work in teams, communicate technical details and build relationships.

Managers hiring new and experienced CFEs will always ask: Is the candidate able to lead a team successfully, communicate effectively, make presentations or write an investigative report to management? These are key skills that determine promotions, raises and job success.

In summary, CFE job applicants are always weighed on their technical ability and, increasingly today, on their success skills. Employers often ask whether job candidates are the best fit for the organization or whether candidates will align well with the organization’s culture. Furthermore, as a number of headhunters have told me, employers can easily teach the technical skills. The success skills that make up a candidate’s character and demeanor are not so easily taught yet can have an enormous impact on whether a candidate eventually gets his or her dream job or the top-floor corner office. So, a mix of both cognitive and noncognitive skills, the latter such as motivation, self-esteem and perseverance, determine many life outcomes, including education, health and even involvement in crime.

To benefit from strong success skills and develop a long-term career, the foremost step for young professionals as for any other professional, is to own their career. The ability to direct and fill roles in opportunity areas highly depends on career ownership and effective personal management. Success skills are increasingly becoming the often-unrecognized element for career mastery; as recruiters tell me, the bottom line is that a full professional success depends on their mastery.

Read more »

Expert Witness or Consultant

One of our newer Chapter members submitted a comment on-line two weeks ago requesting information about the pitfalls involved in the CFE choosing to act as a consultant to a client attorney rather than as an expert witness. This is an important topic for CFEs in individual practice as well as for those serving as examiners on the staffs of private or public entities. The ACFE tells us that CFEs typically act as experts in the legal process by assisting attorneys with the financial details of a suit and testifying about these practices at trial. They analyze documents and transactions, showing how the fraud was accomplished and, when possible, who the most likely perpetrators were. The CFE is a guide and adviser for the attorney in assembling the case, and a major participant in explaining the details of a fraud scenario to a judge and jury.

In general, expert witnesses are typically brought in when required by law, as in malpractice suits where a member of a given profession must explain the infraction against professional by-laws or principles; when key points are deemed sufficiently technical or complex, such as in cooking-the-books schemes involving intricate accounting manipulations, or to assist a jury in making its decision. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 says that an expert witness with appropriate knowledge and credentials may testify in any proceeding where scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge will shed light on the dispute. Even in cases that don’t go to trial, experts may still be involved in mediation, arbitration, settlement conferences, or summary judgment motions.

Experts contribute to the trial process in numerous ways. They provide background information to guide and frame a case; during the discovery process they investigate, run tests, advise on depositions, prepare other witnesses, make exhibits, and respond to the opposition’s discovery requests; they file written opinions, which are entered as evidence into the court record; and they testify in actual proceedings should the case make it to a courtroom.

Once they accept a case, many experts immediately start assembling a narrative version of the events. This detailed summary of the facts of the case serves as the raw material for rendering an official opinion. As we’ve pointed out many times, it’s important that the text be written with care and professionalism because the text may (and probably will) have to be produced during discovery. Additionally, a well-written narrative helps the client attorney in preparing and executing the case at trial.

According to our most experienced members, perhaps the thorniest challenge for CFEs, once they’re engaged to work on a case, is setting a value on the specific business losses due to a fraud. Depending on the facts, there may be several methods for evaluating net worth/net loss, each rendering a different number at the end. And regardless of the numbers, there’s always the human element. Calculating business loss is a challenging task in a complex case because the examiner has to consider the amount of business being done, try to reconstruct the market conditions, think about competitors, and then calculate the amount of direct personal benefit; all of these factors being intertwined. In such cases, the examiner must consider a variety of points, prepare an estimate of loss, and then, most often, try to work out a compromise.

Article V. of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Code of Professional Ethics states:

A fraud examiner, in conducting examinations, will obtain evidence or other documentation to establish a reasonable basis for any opinion rendered. No opinion shall be expressed regarding the guilt or innocence of any person or party.

The rule that prohibits opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of any person or party is a rule of prudence. Clearly, it’s prudent for a Certified Fraud Examiner to refrain from usurping the role of jury. In a courtroom, no good attorney would ask a CFE for such a conclusion, and no alert judge would allow such testimony.  The fraud examiner’s job is to present the evidence in his or her report. Such evidence might constitute a convincing case pointing to the guilt or innocence of a person. But a clear line should be drawn between a report that essentially says, “Here is the evidence” and one that steps over the line and says “S/he is the guilty (innocent) person.” Nevertheless, there is a fine line between recommending action, forwarding the evidence to a law enforcement agency or filing a complaint or lawsuit, and giving an opinion on guilt or innocence. CFEs may make such recommendations because they think the evidence is strong enough to support a case. They might even have a conclusion about whether the suspect committed a crime. The rule does not prohibit the CFE, under the proper circumstances, from accusing the person under investigation. However, the ultimate decision of whether a person is “guilty” or “innocent” is for a jury to determine. The CFE is free to report the facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts, but the decision as to whether a person is guilty of a crime is a decision for the judge or jury.

Caution is the by-word for every expert witnesses at every step of the legal process. According to discovery rules governing expert testimony, everything the expert says or writes about the case after being hired is subject to discovery by opposing counsel. That means everything: narrative versions of the case, comments to the press or law enforcement, hypothetical reconstructions, even notes can be demanded and used by the opposing party. A shrewd attorney can use an expert’s preliminary notes containing drafts of an opinion and other purely deliberative information to call the witness’s testimony into question. The only exception is when the expert is hired by the attorney purely on a consulting basis. An expert witness has no privilege. The principle of privilege exists to protect certain core societal relationships (attorney-client, husband-wife), but the expert witness’s relationship with clients is not among those protected. If the expert’s opinions will be presented in court, everything related to the expert’s opinion is discoverable by the defense.

There is an exception. The CFE expert may consult on the client attorney’s work product, i.e., materials the attorney prepares as background for a case. While performing background work, the expert is said to be working as an associate of the attorney, so the exchange is protected; they are two professionals conferring. However, once the expert is hired as a witness, and begins entering opinions as part of the attorney’s case, there is no privilege for any contribution the expert makes. The distinction is something like this: when acting as “witnesses,” experts are bringing official information to the court, and so must disclose any contact with the case; when experts act as “consultants” or “associates” for attorneys or law enforcement, they are only assisting the attorney, and do not have to disclose their involvement in the case. However, if a testifying expert reviews the work of the consultant expert, then the work of the consultant expert will be discoverable. Remember this; if a CFE is hired to testify at trial, anything he or s/he used to form his or her opinion will be subject to review by the opposing party. This includes notes from other experts, documents received from the plaintiff or defendant, and any documents or notes from the attorney. CFEs should be sure to consult with the client attorney before reviewing anything. If the attorney has not given the document to you, then ask before you read. Otherwise, you may inadvertently destroy the confidentiality or privilege of the material.

In summary, the best way to protect the confidentiality of information is to keep good files. Any materials which serve as the basis for an expert’s opinion must be in the file. Notes, documents, or tests that serve as background, or that represent unfruitful lines of investigation, don’t have to be included, and probably shouldn’t be. The attorney trying the case doesn’t want an expert having to answer about investigative dead ends or exploratory side lines; a shrewd cross-examiner can turn a hastily scribbled hypothetical into reasonable doubt, just enough to avert a conviction. So, in the best-case scenario, an expert presents to the court an opinion and its basis, nothing more nothing less.

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.

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.

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).

From Inside the Building

By Rumbi Petrozzello, CFE, CPA/CFF
2017 Vice-President – Central Virginia Chapter ACFE

Several months ago, I attended an ACFE session where one of the speakers had worked on the investigation of Edward Snowden. He shared that one of the ways Snowden had gained access to some of the National Security Agency (NSA) data that he downloaded was through the inadvertent assistance of his supervisor. According to this investigator, Snowden’s supervisor shared his password with Snowden, giving Snowden access to information that was beyond his subordinate’s level of authorization. In addition to this, when those security personnel reviewing downloads made by employees noticed that Snowden was downloading copious amounts of data, they approached Snowden’s supervisor to question why this might be the case. The supervisor, while acknowledging this to be true, stated that Snowden wasn’t really doing anything untoward.

At another ACFE session, a speaker shared information with us about how Chelsea Manning was able to download and remove data from a secure government facility. Manning would come to work, wearing headphones, listening to music on a Discman. Security would hear the music blasting and scan the CDs. Day after day, it was the same scenario. Manning showed up to work, music blaring.  Security staff grew so accustomed to Manning, the Discman and her CDs that when she came to work though security with a blank CD boldly labelled “LADY GAGA”, security didn’t blink. They should have because it was that CD and ones like it that she later carried home from work that contained the data she eventually shared with WikiLeaks.

Both these high-profile disasters are notable examples of the bad outcome arising from a realized internal threat. Both Snowden and Manning worked for organizations that had, and have, more rigorous security procedures and policies in place than most entities. Yet, both Snowden and Manning did not need to perform any magic tricks to sneak data out of the secure sites where the target data was held; it seems that it all it took was audacity on the one side and trust and complacency on the other.

When organizations deal with outside parties, such as vendors and customers, they tend to spend a lot of time setting up the structures and systems that will guide how the organization will interact with those vendors and customers. Generally, companies will take these systems of control seriously, if only because of the problems they will have to deal with during annual external audits if they don’t. The typical new employee will spend a lot of time learning what the steps are from the point when a customer places an order through to the point the customer’s payment is received. There will be countless training manuals to which to refer and many a reminder from co-workers who may be negatively impacted if the rooky screws up.

However, this scenario tends not to hold up when it comes to how employees typically share information and interact with each other. This is true despite the elevated risk that a rogue insider represents. Often, when we think about an insider causing harm to a company through fraudulent acts, we tend to imagine a villain, someone we could identify easily because s/he is obviously a terrible person. After all, only a terrible person could defraud their employer. In fact, as the ACFE tells us, the most successful fraudsters are the ones who gain our trust and who, therefore, don’t really have to do too much for us to hand over the keys to the kingdom. As CFEs and Forensic Accountants, we need to help those we work with understand the risks that an insider threat can represent and how to mitigate that risk. It’s important, in advising our clients, to guide them toward the creation of preventative systems of policy and procedure that they sometimes tend to view as too onerous for their employees. Excuses I often hear run along the lines of:

• “Our employees are like family here, we don’t need to have all these rules and regulations”

• “I keep a close eye on things, so I don’t have to worry about all that”

• “My staff knows what they are supposed to do; don’t worry about it.”

Now, if people can easily walk sensitive information out of locations that have documented systems and are known to be high security operations, can you imagine what they can do at your client organizations? Especially if the employer is assuming that their employees magically know what they are supposed to do? This is the point that we should be driving home with our clients. We should look to address the fact that both trust and complacency in organizations can be problems as well as assets. It’s great to be able to trust employees, but we should also talk to our clients about the fraud triangle and how one aspect of it, pressure, can happen to any staff member, even the most trusted. With that in mind, it’s important to institute controls so that, should pressure arise with an employee, there will be little opportunity open to that employee to act. Both Manning and Snowden have publicly spoken about the pressures they felt that led them to act in the way they did. The reason we even know about them today is that they had the opportunity to act on those pressures. I’ve spent time consulting with large organizations, often for months at a time. During those times, I got to chat with many members of staff, including security. On a couple of occasions, I forgot and left my building pass at home. Even though I was on a first name basis with the security staff and had spent time chatting with them about our personal lives, they still asked me for identification and looked me up in the system. I’m sure they thought I was a nice and trustworthy enough person, but they knew to follow procedures and always checked on whether I was still authorized to access the building. The important point is that they, despite knowing me, knew to check and followed through.

Examples of controls employees should be reminded to follow are:

• Don’t share your password with a fellow employee. If that employee cannot access certain information with their own password, either they are not authorized to access that information or they should speak with an administrator to gain the desired access. Sharing a password seems like a quick and easy solution when under time pressures at work, but remind employees that when they share their login information, anything that goes awry will be attributed to them.

• Always follow procedures. Someone looking for an opportunity only needs one.

• When something looks amiss, thoroughly investigate it. Even if someone tells you that all is well, verify that this is indeed the case.

• Explain to staff and management why a specific control is in place and why it’s important. If they understand why they are doing something, they are more likely to see the control as useful and to apply it.

• Schedule training on a regular basis to remind staff of the controls in place and the systems they are to follow. You may believe that staff knows what they are supposed to do, but reminding them reduces the risk of them relying on hearsay and secondhand information. Management is often surprised by what they think staff knows and what they find out the staff really knows.

It should be clear to your clients that they have control over who has access to sensitive information and when and how it leaves their control. It doesn’t take much for an insider to gain access to this information. A face you see smiling at you daily is the face of a person you can grow comfortable with and with whom you can drop your guard. However, if you already have an adequate system and effective controls in place, you take the personal out of the equation and everyone understands that we are all just doing our job.

Governance and Fraud Detection

Originally, the business owner had the most say in decisions regarding the enterprise. Then, corporate structures were put in place to facilitate decision making, as ownership was spread over millions of shareholders. Boards of directors took over many responsibilities. But with time, the chief executive officer (CEO) ended up having a large say in the composition of the board and, in many instances, ruled and controlled the company and its strategy. The only option for shareholders appeared to be to sell their shares if they were not happy with the performance of a specific organization. Many anti-fraud professionals think that this situation contributed significantly to business demises such as that of Enron and to the horrors consequent to the mortgage meltdown and accompanying fiscal crisis.

Proposals were made to re-equilibrate the power structure by giving more power and responsibilities to the board and to specific committees, such as the audit committee, to better deal with internal control and fair financial reporting or the remuneration committee to better deal with the basis for the type and the level of remuneration of the CEO. New legislation was put into place, such as the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Basel II. Compliance with these pieces of legislation consumed a lot of attention, energy and cost.

Enterprises exist to deliver value to their stakeholders. This is accomplished by handling risk advantageously and using resources responsibly. Speedy direction setting and quick reaction to change are essential in such a situation so decision making must be shared among many. Therefore, governance comes into play. Successful enterprises implement an over-arching system of governance that facilitates the achievement of their desired outcomes, both at the enterprise level and at each level within the enterprise; this is especially true with regard to the problem of fraud detection.  In this context, a holistic definition of enterprise governance is in order: Governance is the framework, principles, structure, processes and practices to set direction and monitor compliance and performance aligned with the overall purpose and objectives of an enterprise.

This definition is initially implemented by the answers to and actions on the following governance related questions:

Who is accountable and responsible for enterprise governance? Stakeholders, owners, governing bodies and management are responsible and accountable for governance.

What do they do, and how and where do they do it? They engage in activities (set direction, monitor compliance and performance) in relationship with others and use enablers (frameworks, principles, structures, processes, practices) within the governance view appropriate to them (governance of the enterprise; of an organizational entity within the enterprise such as a business unit, division or function; and of a strategic asset within the enterprise or within an organizational entity).

Why do they do it? They institute governance to create value for their enterprise, determine its risk appetite, optimize its resources and use them responsibly.

In summary, accountability and stewardship are delegated to a governance body by the owner/stakeholder, expecting it to assume accountability for the activities necessary to meet expectations. In alignment with the overall direction of the enterprise, management executes the appropriate activities within the context of a control framework, balancing performance and compliance in achieving the governance objectives of value creation, risk management and resource optimization.

Fraud detection (within the context of a fully defined fraud prevention program) is a vital business process of the over-hanging governance function and can be implemented by numerous generally accepted procedures.  But a few examples …

One way to increase the likelihood of the detection by the governance function of fraud abuses is the conduct of periodic external and internal audits, as well as the implementation of special network security audits. Auditors should regularly test system controls and periodically “browse” data files looking for suspicious activities. However, care must be exercised to make sure employees’ privacy rights are not violated. Informing employees that auditors will conduct a random surveillance not only helps resolve the privacy issue, but also has a significant deterrent effect on computer assisted fraud exploits.

Employees witnessing fraudulent behavior are often torn between two conflicting feelings. They feel an obligation to protect company assets and turn in fraud perpetrators, yet they are uncomfortable in a whistleblower role and find it easier to remain silent. This reluctance is even stronger if they are aware of public cases of whistleblowers who have been ostracized or persecuted by their coworkers or superiors, or have had their careers damaged. An effective way to resolve this conflict is to provide employees with hotlines so they can anonymously report fraud. The downside of hotlines is that many of the calls are not worthy of investigation. Some calls come from those seeking revenge, others are vague reports of wrongdoing, and others simply have no merit. A potential problem with a hotline is that those who operate the hotline may report to people who are involved in a management fraud. This threat can be overcome by using a fraud hotline set up by a trade organization or commercial company. Reports of management fraud can be passed from this company directly to the board of directors.

Many private and public organizations use outside computer consultants or in-house teams to test and evaluate their security procedures and computer systems through the performance of system penetration testing.  The consultants are paid to try everything possible to compromise an enterprise’s system(s). To get into offices so they can look for passwords or get on computers, they masquerade as janitors, temporary workers, or confused delivery personnel. They also employ software based hacker tools (readily available on the Internet) and social engineering techniques.  Using such methods, some outside consultants claim that they can penetrate 90% or more of the companies they “attack” to a greater or lesser degree.

All financial transactions and activities should be recorded in a log. The log should indicate who accessed what data, when, and from which location. These logs should be reviewed frequently to monitor system activity and trace any problems to their source. There are numerous risk analysis and management software packages that can review computer systems and networks and the financial transactions they contain. These packages evaluate security measures already in place and test for weaknesses and vulnerabilities. A series of reports are then generated to explain any weaknesses found and suggest improvements. Cost parameters can be entered so that a company can balance acceptable levels of vulnerability and cost effectiveness. There are also intrusion-detection programs and software utilities that can detect illegal entry into systems along with software that monitors system activity and helps companies recover from fraud and malicious actions.

People who commit fraud tend to follow certain patterns and leave tell-tale clues, often things that do not make sense. Software is readily available to search for these fraud symptoms. For example, a health insurance company could use fraud detection software to look at how often procedures are performed, whether a diagnosis and the procedures performed fit a patient’s profile, how long a procedure takes, and how far patients live from the doctor’s office.

Neural networks (programs that mimic brain activity and can learn new concepts) are quite accurate in identifying suspected fraud. For example, Visa and MasterCard operations employ neural network software to track hundreds of millions of separate account transactions daily. Neural networks spot the illegal use of a credit card and notify the owner within a few hours of its theft. The software can also spot trends before bank investigators do.

Each enterprise needs to determine its appropriate overall governance system and the fraud detection approaches it decides to implement in support of that system. To help in that determination, mapping governance frameworks, principles, structures, processes and practices, currently in use, is beneficial. CFE’s and forensic accountants are uniquely qualified to assist in this process given their in-depth knowledge of all types of fraud scenarios and the tailoring of the anti-fraud controls most appropriate for the control of each within a specific company environment.