Page 314 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Other Applications 367

HOW ON EARTH DID YOU TRACE ME?

An anonymous letter was subject to an ESDA the author had used an earlier page in his
examination. In the top right-hand corner, notepad to write to his mother. From this
the examiner discovered the impression investigators traced and interviewed him:
of an address which had been made when ‘How on earth did you trace me?’ he asked.

Also, the syntax of the letter, its layout, the typeface, the precise nature of the allegations
made and not made, the time frame to which they relate and the possible motivation of the
informant should be considered. These may lead to identification of the author.

Always try to identify the informant

You should check to see if other allegations have been made about the same person or re-
lating to the area in which he works. If these were fully investigated and proven to be untrue,
this will obviously influence the importance you attach to the current information but, even
so, don’t simply dismiss it.

Obtain full background on the subject

Without alerting the subject of the complaint, find out as much background information
as possible about him, from personnel files, telephone call logs, expense statements etc. Re-
view his authority levels and the transactions he handles. These details may help you decide
whether the allegations are true or even feasible.

Develop a fraud theory

List the allegations which have been made and note alongside each one the evidence that sup-
ports or contradicts them, and assess whether they are credible. In the first instance, assume
the allegations are true.

Do not dismiss allegations without investigating them carefully

If possible, you should review audit and performance reports for the area in which the
subject works. Develop a fraud theory of the ‘worst case’ and assemble any ‘key points’ (see
page [xref]) that support or rebut the allegations. In some cases it may be possible, without
alerting the subject, to review transactions for which he is responsible. Again the objective is
to test the accuracy of the allegations.

Prepare a brief investigations plan and consider actions you might take (see Appendix 1),
including test purchases or sales, interception of communications, examination of telephone
call logs, personal computers etc. prior to interviewing anyone. However, remember that the
action you take must be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations concerned.

TAPE RECORDING but excessive if the only suspicion was a
minor expenses fiddle.
It would be proportionate to intercept the
communications of an employee where
massive corruption was potentially involved,