Forensics Journal

process analysts and technicians undergo to obtain various work-related credentials based on qualifying education, experience, etc. Not all accrediting bodies require analysts or technicians to obtain specific certifications. In this paper, the term forensic science service provider may be used interchangeably with science service provider is defined as “having at least one full-time analyst, however named, who examines physical evidence in criminal and/or investigative matters and provides reports or opinion testimony with respect to such evidence in United States courts of law” (National Science and Technology Council 3). Understanding Fraud: From the Basics to Analysis By Lauren Rose Harry Markopolos was once an obscure financial analyst, a number-crunching fraud investigator from Boston. His career at a Boston investment firm focused on analyzing the trading strategies and revenue streams of exceptionally-performing compa- nies in order to replicate and/or produce superior results (Kroft). His obscurity ended after he uncovered Bernard Madoff’s 65 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. Madoff, former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, was highly respected in the stock market industry. In fact, he was one of the most powerful men on Wall Street. Markopolos’ investigation lasted over eight years and his conclusion was that Madoff was committing fraud. Through mathematics, Markopolos was able to prove that Madoff was scamming investors out of millions of dollars. Over time, the relationship of mathematically analyzing financial data to the frequen- cy of discovered fraud has become more evident. This is due to increased awareness and knowledge of fraudsters’ motivations and opportunities, advancements in technology, improved education of and increased demand for professional fraud examiners and forensic accountants, and the overall higher occurrence of fraud. Forensic accountants and fraud examiners have been referred to as the “bloodhounds” of the accounting profession. Editor, Journal of Forensic Accounting, Dr. Larry Crumbly notes that the job of forensic accountants today is to sniff out any suspicious activity in financial records rather than function as the “guard dog,” or external auditor of the statements (Forensic CPA Society). At the 32nd Annual Southwest Securities Enforcement Conference, Lori Richards, Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations in the Securities and Exchange Commission, delivered a speech detailing why fraud occurs and what can be done to prevent or deter it. She briefly discussed five major types of people who commit frauds: the “grifter,” “borrower,” “opportunist,” “crowd-follower,” and “minimizer” (Richards). The “grifter” is a person who commits fraud with the intent to steal money. These types of frauds are planned in advance, by a person who is often charming, creative, and cunning: “a committed fraudster” (Richards). “Grifter” frauds are seen often in the corporate world, and include Ponzi schemes, advance fee schemes, and pump-and-dump schemes. Bernard Madoff is considered a “grifter” due to his Ponzi scheme Health Care Fraud Enforcement Following the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act of 2010 By Amy Wise Deception within the health care industry is an inescapable problem. Charlatans, quacks, and rogues peddling their quick fixes or miracle cure-alls are still in existence today. These fraudsters have exchanged promoting Dr. Williams’ Pink Pills for Pale People, nothing more than licorice with iron and potassium, for more complex schemes to defraud (Ainsworth 480). Since the 1980s Congress has enacted new laws or revised existing legislation to combat fraud. The most recent example is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which was signed into law on March 20, 2010, and is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18001 et seq. (2010). The PPACA garnered national attention as a result of various coverage controversies. Scant attention, however, was paid to the changes to laws affecting the enforcement of health care fraud, specifically the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The FCA was passed by Congress in 1863, with an original focus on combating procurement fraud (Helmer and Neff 35). It has since evolved into a compelling tool for other types of fraud (Bucy 57). The AKS is a more modern law, focused on the prevention of referral arrangements resulting in unethical or otherwise improper financial relationships (Leap 42). There is strong evidence that amendments to the AKS under the PPACA have strengthened not only the existing statute but have also extended the reach of the FCA. Regrettably, changes to the public disclosure bar and the revised definition of “original source” instituted by Congress have failed to enhance the FCA. Fraud occurs when the payer is presented with a false representation of services rendered, relies on that misinformation to process the claim, and is thereby deceived. In order to be fraud, the misrepresentation must be made about a material fact and the person making the statement must do so either knowingly or recklessly (Leap 22). For example, provider health care fraud occurs when the payer, such as Medicare, uses false information presented on a claim form to reimburse the claimant. Believing the claim to be accurate, Medicare is deceived into making a payment. Deterring Police Misconduct in Searches and Seizures: A Twofold Approach By Frank DiVincenzo Fremont Weeks and Dollree Mapp are not considered household names. Generally, these individuals are spoken of merely in historical and legal contexts. Weeks and Mapp, born decades apart, became the two most influential persons in the development of the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule. In 1911, local and federal law enforcement officers conducted a warrantless raid of Weeks’s home in Kansas City, Missouri (Weeks v. United States 386). Almost fifty years later, Mapp experienced a similar type of warrantless raid on her home in Cleveland, Ohio (Mapp v. Ohio 644-645). The Weeks v. United States case established the Exclusionary Rule, which eliminated illegally seized evidence from federal courts (398-399). Years later, Mapp v. Ohio expanded the Exclusionary Rule by prohibiting the use of illegally seized evidence in all state courts (655). The outcomes of these cases forever changed the history of the judicial system in the United States as well as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against police misconduct in investigative searches and seizures. A little over a century later, despite the many criticisms and suggested replacements associated with the Exclusionary Rule, research demonstrates that the standard continues to persevere as the most effective tool for deterring police officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures. Thus, while Fremont Weeks and Dollree Mapp are deceased, the standard set in their cases lives on today.Police Misconduct and the Exclusionary Rule Supreme Court Justices developed the Exclusionary Rule in an effort to deter police officers from unlawfully collecting evidence during searches and seizures (Oaks 668). It is not the evidence itself that makes it illegal or inadmissible in court. The evidence collected is typically considered to be reliable and authentic; however, the illegal methods used to collect such evidence are what cause judges to disqualify it in criminal court (Paulsen 255). Unlawful searches and seizures of evidence, which can constitute police misconduct in some cases, occur in a variety of ways. Lawful search and seizure requires two conditions to exist. First, a police officer must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe a suspect has acted unlawfully. Second, a police officer is required to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to executing the search and seizing the evidence. Voluntary consent from the suspect can also permit a police officer to execute a search. Once police officers receive consent to search and they find contraband, they do not have to obtain consent to seize the evidence. Occasionally, extenuating circumstances can justify an unlawful seizure of evidence, such as when evidence in the suspect’s possession could be harmful to the surrounding public or when evidence is located in plain view (Mason). Otherwise, any deviation from the aforementioned search and seizure requirements would qualify as police misconduct. Capability – A Crucial Element in Fraud Detection and Prevention By Shelby Lamb “The company’s failure in 2001 represents the biggest business bankruptcy ever while also spotlighting corporate America’s moral failings. It’s a stark reminder of the implications of being seduced by charismatic leaders, or more specifically, those who sought excess at the expense of their communi- ties and their employees. In the end, those misplaced morals killed the company while it injured all of those who had gone along for the ride.” This quote published in the article, “Enron, Ethics and Today’s Corporate Values,” succinctly summarized the Enron scandal. The executives of Enron used their positions, knowledge, egos, and coercion skills – all capability components – to hide billions of dollars of company debt from the public, employees, shareholders, and auditors. The coercive acts of the executives resulted in the largest audit failure in corporate history, but only for a matter of time. In October of 2001, the fraud was finally revealed, leading to Enron’s demise. Based on the audit investigations of the Enron scandal, legislators passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which increased penalties for anyone tampering

Load more