Complete CFE-Investigation ACFE Materials

From the2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual, under the section related to tracing financial transactions, specifically tracing the disposition of loan proceeds, the following objectives of tracing activities are explicitly outlined:

“Tracing the disposition of loan proceeds can help fraud examiners:

Determine whether loan proceeds were deposited into hidden or unknown accounts

Determine whether loan proceeds were used to pay off other loans

Identify the involvement of previously unknown individuals (potential witnesses)

Determine whether payments were made from hidden accounts

Identify undisclosed related-party transactions”

There isno mentionthat tracing loan proceeds can uncoverprevious civil offensescommitted by the subject. Civil offenses refer to non-criminal violations (e.g., breach of contract, torts), which tracing offinancial transactions like loan proceedsis not directly designed to uncover.

This isnot a recognized purposeof tracing as taught in the CFE Investigation section. The core objectives revolve around uncovering hidden assets, hidden accounts, payments, and potential witnesses —not prior legal infractions.

Therefore, thecorrect answer is A, as it is the only option that isNOT trueaccording to official CFE investigation materials.

TheFraud Examiners Manualexplains:

“Benford’s Law applies to data that is not assigned (such as IDs or phone numbers) but that occurs naturally in transactions. For example, payment amounts, invoice values, and expense reimbursements are well suited.”

Thus,payment amountsare best suited for Benford’s Law.

TheFraud Examiners Manualspecifies that admission-seeking interviews should only be conducted when:

“There is a reasonable probability that the respondent has committed the act in question.

All other reasonable investigative steps have been completed.

The interviewer can reasonably control the place, time, and subject matter of the interview.”

There isno requirementthat the examiner must be sure no one else was involved. Therefore,C is correct.

“Once a denial is uttered, it becomes extremely difficult for the accused to change his response, because doing so would be an admission that he lied. Therefore, the interviewer must prevent an outright denial, thereby making it easier for the subject to confess”.

“One of the most effective techniques to stop or interrupt a denial is through a delaying tactic… the interviewer should attempt to delay the outright denial; he should not argue with the accused”.

Thus, Charles should interrupt with a delaying tactic.