Answer this question
Find a court case that used some type of valuation method/process. Give a brief overview of the court case (who was involved, the nature of the fraud, the valuation used etc) and explain, in detail, if you feel the valuation method was justified or if you would have done the valuation differently? Be sure to include specific items related to this case and support your conclusions with additional authoritative sources (including peer reviewed articles from the library, Fraud Examiners Manual, etc).
Comment this post (DL)
In the case of Shahbabian v. Trihealth, Inc., Dr. Shahbabian has brought suit against Trihealth for age discrimination and the alleged attempt to dismantle his neurosurgery practice. This particular piece of the case is a review of documents submitted by the defendant regarding Dr. Shahbabian’s salary. Within these documents is a valuation of his salary based upon fair market value, or FMV. “Plaintiff therefore seeks the production of documentation relating to FMV determinations of both his compensation during the formation of the 2014 contract and any subsequent related FMV determinations” (Shahbabian v. Trihealth, Inc., 2019, p. 3). The doctor states that his salary was wrongfully valued, thus his request for the documentation supporting the estimated value.
Outside of this case’s focus of intentionally putting the doctor’s practice out of business, the defendant may have good reason to alter the valuation of his salary. “There are several reasons that fraudsters might fabricate or falsify appraisals, including…To criminally gain money” (ACFE, 2019, p. 407). It is suggested in the case that TriHealth has a countersuit for the adjustment to Dr. Shahbabian’s contracted salary. For this reason alone, TriHealth may want to fabricate the valuation.
The court ruled that the valuation was performed by an outside contracted party and that their methods were appropriate. When valuation is involved in a legal case it is important to remember that, “The critical point is that the expert cannot be prevented from applying professional judgment in the selection of valuation approaches and methods” (DiGabriele & Lohrey, 2017, p. 3). As long as the expert was not instructed to use a particular method then it is admissible in court.
Personally, I feel the fair market value approach is a standard valuation technique and is applicable in this case. The only question from me, “is whether the expert is prevented by the client from presenting an objective, independent methodology” (DiGabriele & Lohrey, 2017, p. 4). The court examined the documentation and deemed the opinion free from influence and that the expert had formed an accurate opinion.
Answer this question
Now that you have looked at a number of fraud investigation techniques, select and area in the Fraud Examiner’s Manual under the Investigation topic (planning, analyzing documents, interviewing, covert examinations etc) and discuss how you would use that technique in a fraud investigation regarding missing inventory. Please try to select a different topic than your classmates. Be sure to provide information specific to this situation and to support your conclusions with additional authoritative sources (including peer reviewed articles from the library, Fraud Examiners Manual, etc).
Comment this post (LB)
For retailers, manufacturers and contractors, one of the most difficult administrative tasks is to keep tabs on inventory. If your physical inventory count doesn’t seem to add up the numbers, it may be time to bring in a fraud expert to uncover the source of the discrepancy. A fraud specialist must decide if the items were really stolen or merely lost before claiming theft. Employees hold sloppy records in many situations, and fail to follow proper procedures, resulting in stock “missing.” If there is necessity to investigate one of my favorite part is the interview which is conducted following the below techniques (ACFE 2019).
The primary subject interview usually takes place at or close to the end of the case when the facts are suitably formalized to allow the interviewer to frame the critical questions and assess the truthfulness of the answers given by the subject. The primary subject in an inventory fraud case is typically the bribe receiver, and the primary subject in a fraud case is, of course, the alleged fraudster. The typical targets of a subject’s interview are (Deloitte 2009):
· To extract effective confessions or full confession if the proof of guilt is strong.
· If the evidence strongly indicates guilt, but is insufficient to make a confession, know the defenses of the subject and lay the groundwork to refute them later.
· If there is no clear evidence of guilt or innocence, encourage the defendant to make his or her argument and obtain sufficient information to settle the case reasonably.
· To collect financial data and to request for financial and other documents (Deloitte 2009).
On the other hand, the topic also requires a financial interview, particularly when illegal transactions are to be proved on a circumstantial basis. If the subject objects to answering questions about his or her personal finances, respectfully clarify that you are required to ask them about the essence of the claims and the obligation of the subject to comply, unless necessary, requires him to answer them. Notify the target that his or her personal information will be kept confidential and will only be used for investigative reasons. To include the subject, partner, children and other related parties, as well as any company or other individual, the interview questions should be framed. If you don’t already have the details, ask where the subject was previously raised, taught, worked and lived. This will help you to concentrate in these areas on public records and litigation searches (ACFE 2019).