CFE- Fraud-Investigations-and-Legal-Issues Exam Results

The correct answer is B. Sounding board. In expert-witness cross-examination, the “sounding board” method is used when counsel asks the expert to agree with a series of basic or already accepted facts so the lawyer can repeat favorable points through the witness. The technique is not mainly about exposing inconsistency or prejudice. Instead, it uses the witness to reinforce the examining party’s theory of the case by obtaining repeated agreement on foundational matters. Secondary CFE prep materials describe sounding board in this same way: the witness is used to generally agree with the questioner’s position or with favorable facts already established.

The other options do not fit as well. Contradiction would involve trying to show the witness has said something inconsistent. Bias aims to show the witness is not objective, perhaps because of fees or relationships. Myopic vision usually refers to suggesting the expert’s perspective is too narrow or one-sided. Here, Nancy is simply being led to agree with basic, favorable facts, which is the classic sounding-board approach. Therefore, B is the most accurate answer.

The Fraud Examiners Manual explains that recommendations in a report are optional, not mandatory. When included, they should cover remedial measures such as control reviews or increased security.

“Finally, the fraud examiner might decide to include a section for recommendations. The recommendations section should contain remedial measures or specific recommendations for follow-up actions … This section is optional”.

Therefore, C is correct. Options A and D are incorrect because recommendations are not required in every report, and B misstates its purpose.

During admission-seeking interviews, when suspects persist with denials or alibis, examiners are trained to diffuse them. Accepted techniques include:

Discussing testimony of witnesses,

Displaying physical evidence, and

Downplaying the strength of evidence.

However, manuals caution that discussing a suspect’s prior deceptions is not an effective or recommended method to diffuse alibis. It risks confrontation and may damage rapport, reducing chances of confession.

Therefore, option C is the exception.

The correct answer is C. Whether an employee is covered by a union contract can significantly affect the employee’s rights during an internal investigation because unionized employees may have representation rights during investigatory interviews. In the United States, the National Labor Relations Board explains that employees in unionized workplaces can have Weingarten rights, meaning they may request union representation during an interview the employee reasonably believes could lead to discipline.

That makes a union or collective bargaining agreement far more relevant to investigation rights than the other choices. Option A, the employee’s length of service, might matter in some human-resources settings but does not usually determine the employee’s legal investigation rights. Option B, a noncompetition agreement, concerns post-employment competition restrictions rather than representation, questioning, or procedural protections during an internal inquiry. Option D, the likelihood of guilt or innocence, is likewise not what determines the employee’s rights; legal protections apply based on the governing employment relationship and applicable labor law, not the employer’s suspicion level. For fraud examiners, this distinction matters because interview procedures can change depending on whether the employee is unionized or otherwise contractually protected. Therefore, the factor most likely to affect the employee’s rights is whether the employee has signed a union contract.