Ace Your CFE-Law Certified Fraud Examiner Exam

The correct answer is A. The CFE Manual explains that to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, and that the victim actually suffered emotional or mental distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct. These core elements match options B, C, and D.

There is no general requirement that the distress must have lasted for at least two years. That time-based condition is not one of the recognized elements listed in the CFE Law section. The Manual instead focuses on the nature of the conduct and the causal connection between that conduct and the victim’s injury. It also notes that the conduct must be sufficiently outrageous to exceed the bounds tolerated by civilized society and that mere insults or ordinary upset are not enough. Additionally, the Manual emphasizes that actionable claims require proof of serious, visible, and provable harm. Still, none of those requirements impose a fixed minimum duration such as two years. Accordingly, A is the only choice that is not a required element of this common law tort.

This question tests your knowledge of Domain 4.

In the context of Securities Fraud, specifically relating to securities, SRO, the question asks about MOST ACCURATE, serf-regulatory organizations (SROs) in the securities industry.

The correct answer is D: In some jurisdictions SROs establish the standards and rules under which members of the securities industry operate.

This question tests knowledge of securities fraud and regulation. The correct answer accurately describes the role of regulatory bodies, securities laws, or fraud schemes in this context. Securities fraud is a specialized area requiring knowledge of specific regulations and oversight mechanisms. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs) play an important role in the securities industry by establishing standards and rules for their members, but they typically operate under the oversight of government regulators rather than having sole authority.

The correct answer is A. The primary purpose of expert testimony is to help the fact finder understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue by applying specialized knowledge. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that an expert may testify when the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. That captures the classic role of an expert witness in fraud-related litigation.

Option B is incorrect because deciding the admissibility of evidence is generally a matter for the judge, not the expert witness. Option C is also incorrect because experts ordinarily are not called to opine on whether another witness is truthful; credibility determinations are for the fact finder. Option D is incorrect because experts generally do not decide or directly state whether the accused is guilty; that is the function of the judge or jury after considering all admissible evidence. In CFE practice, expert testimony is valuable because complex accounting records, financial analyses, loss calculations, and fraud patterns often require explanation beyond ordinary lay understanding. Therefore, the best statement of Levi’s primary purpose is that he will help the fact finder understand evidence through specialized knowledge, making A the correct answer.

According to the ACFE Fraud Examiners Manual, Law Section, under The Criminal Justice System and The Law Related to Fraud , obstruction of justice occurs when a person corruptly interferes with the administration of law or the proper functioning of the judicial process. This includes attempting to improperly influence, intimidate, or tamper with witnesses in a pending proceeding.

Offering money to witnesses in exchange for changing their testimony constitutes witness tampering, which is a classic form of obstruction of justice. The essence of obstruction is not merely the success of the interference but the corrupt attempt to impede the due administration of justice. The legal system depends on truthful testimony, and any effort to alter or influence witness statements through bribery undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.

“Conspiracy to influence the court” is not a standard standalone criminal charge in this context, and fraudulent misrepresentation typically relates to deception for financial or property gain, not interference with judicial proceedings. Judicial extortion involves coercion under color of official authority, which does not apply here.

Therefore, Monique’s conduct—offering payment to alter testimony—would most likely result in additional charges for obstruction of justice because she is attempting to corruptly interfere with the criminal trial process.