Problem 1. If you were the fraud investigator, would you use "gut instinct" if something appeared true?
Problem 2. Respond to the following statement.
Is it ethical for a fraud investigator not to include something in a report that she believes to be true and that would help her client but would increase the chances of the perpetrator filing a lawsuit against her? I think that depends on what information they have. If it involves telling the name of the person I think it is ethical that the fraud investigator not include it in the report. If it also involves wording that would implicate a specific person they should not include it as well. A fraud investigator can be sued for defamation if they specifically address a person by name. They can use things like the bookkeeper put this in her purse or it is "consistent with fraud". The fraud investigator is there to present the evidence and back it up with evidence and documentation. If they don't include something in a report because there isn't sufficient evidence or could basically accuse a person I think it is ethical to not include it. If an investigator is accused of defamation they could also lose there insurance liability carrier.
Problem 3. Respond to the following statement.
The Daubert test sets the specific requirements for any technique or theory to see if it can be considered scientific enough to be admitted to court. Not all of these requirements need to be met in order for the expert testimony to be considered scientific. The requirements of the Daubert test are that the theory must be subjected to scientific testing, the theory has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the error rate is reasonably estimated or known, and the theory is accepted in the relevant scientific community. For a forensic accountant, who wants to give expert testimony on an embezzlement case, meeting some of these requirements can be easy to do. To begin all embezzlement theories go through scientific testing to see if there could be another explanation for what could have happened. Error rates are almost always reasonably estimated as another explanation for how funds or inventory could go missing, and GAAP usually is the standard for all investigations. The one requirement that will almost always never be met is that the theory will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
It is completely ethical for a fraud investigator to exclude something they believe to be true from their report. This is mainly because all investigators are hired for their professional expertise and ability to prove or disprove all theories. Opinions are things that can cause the suspect to be able to file a lawsuit against the investigator. Just because the investigator believes that something is true does not mean that it is. For this to be submitted as evidence that could lead to a wrongful conviction is unethical. The thing is that opinions unless from an expert like a doctor is inadmissible in court. Even if this opinion is included in the report, the judge will not validate it unless it was proven through tests.