Summary of Findings Report
After reviewing and analyzing the entire case, I suppose that Anne is the person
who is most likely to commit occupational fraud. Therefore, she will be the person I’d
like to interview. However, I also doubt that Anne and Joe may collude. So, my final
decision is to talk with Bill first, the person who has very low chances to commit fraud.
Then, I will interview Joe, and Anne will be the last one I interview.
Red flags I discovered contributing to my conclusion are the following.
1. Joe sent an email and asked Anne whether she had bought a car on July 5th,
2006, Anne replied to Joe that she had already purchased it and let Joe book $60,050
for the vehicle on July 7th, 2006. From the conversation, since Anne used “it” when
responding to Joe, we can learn that there is only one car that should be purchased in
the name of the company and is valued at $60,050. However, according to the recorded
journal entry, Anne purchased two vehicles on July 7th, 2006. There are two unusual
journal entries regarding Bravo Automobile. Both entries are entered and approved only
by Anne herself. In other words, no one except Anne knows and has participated in the
car’s transaction, even Joe, the CFO, and Bill, the accounting manager.
2. According to cheques handled by Anne on July 7th, there are unexplained
gaps in the sequence of cheque numbers. Also, Bravo Automobile is not the company’s
assets. In combination with email, invoices, journal entries, only the transaction on
Charlie vehicles was approved by Bill and signed by Joe. Therefore, the amount of
