Legal Elements

Congratulations, Ms. or Mr. CFE! You conducted an exhaustive examination of a defrauded business and identified a perpetrator who was later criminally charged with various felony-level financial crimes about 11 months after you submitted your examination. The criminal case has moseyed through the court system for another 22 months after charging, and settlement negotiations between the prosecution and the defense have come to naught. About three weeks before the trial, you receive a bouncing baby subpoena for a criminal trial appearance and three voicemails from a harried legal secretary asking to schedule a meeting between you and the prosecutor for — wait for it — WITNESS PREP.

Canada's history and reputation as a "fraudster's playground" might finally be coming to an end as regulatory and enforcement authorities enter a more well-rounded anti-fraud regimen.

Fraud perpetrators often use a variety of excuses to alleviate the culpability of their mental states because they know they can't be convicted unless prosecutors can prove their criminal acts were accompanied by a guilty state of mind known as mens rea.

Considering a career move into litigation support? Trial attorneys will welcome your investigative skills. But they need fraud examiners who also can clearly communicate in report writing or on the witness stand.

The Supreme Court's decision not to review a recent insider trading case produces a cloudy precedent for white-collar prosecutions.

In the case of Livent, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 2014 decision ordering Deloitte & Touche (Deloitte) pay $118 million in damages to a theater company (Livent, Inc.) for which Deloitte performed auditing services. Why was Deloitte held accountable for such a large sum?