How Not to Remain Partisan as an Forensic Accountant Expert Witness?

Being called to present evidence at court as a forensic accountant requires you to only present opinion evidence. In presenting this evidence, forensic accountants must ensure they are not partisan. More specifically, when the written report is presented to the court there must be no suggestion you are acting as advocates for the party who you are working on behalf of (Hoffman, R. et al., 2013, pg. 46). 

I can relate to this from when I used to umpire junior netball games. When I was in the umpire position I had to act unbiased towards both teams when calling offences. If I did act unbiased towards a team I would of lost my position of umpire and would of not being able to umpire within that club again. 

If I was engaged as an expert forensic accountant, I would ensure that when I am preparing my expert report I gathered all evidence I believed relevant whether it was damaging to my client or not. If I believed evidence was being missed I would engage the lawyer to acquire more information (Hoffman, R. et al., 2013, pg. 46). Another important strategy when constructing the report would be to ensure that the report is understandable to non- accountants and that its conclusions are unbiased in doing so (Hoffman, R. et al., 2013, pg. 46). 

References:

Hoffman, R., Finney, W., Cox, P. & Cooper, K. (2013). An Accountant as an Expert Witness: A basic guide to forensic accounting (2nd ed.).

Forensic Accountants and the Regulatory Environment

The need for forensic accountants to keep up to date with changing regulatory environments is pertinent in their day to day duties as an expert witness in the courts. It is detrimental for them to be credible; by being credible you are aware, understanding of new regulations and able to apply these changes within their evidence they present in court. APES215 states that forensic accountants as expert witness' have a duty to the court (CPA, 2014), if evidence is not provided within these regulations, evidence presented in court will not be considered (Flexstudy, 2015).

Paragraphs 1.3 - 1.7 of the revised APES215, outline the mandatory knowledge for forensic accountants, in the way of understanding what knowledge of regulations they need to acquire before providing forensic accounting services (i.e. being an expert witness).

I can relate to the importance of staying up to date with laws and regulations even within my personal life. Mostly through my part time employment within an accounting firm. I have to apply my knowledge of regulations when doing clients tax returns so I remain within the taxation laws and that I am also claiming all possible deductions for my client's. 

References:

APESB. (2013). APES 215 Forensic Accounting Services. Retrieved from http://www.apesb.org.au/uploads/standards/apesb_standards/13092014103232p1.pdf

CPA Australia. (2014). APES 215: Forensic Accounting Services Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/~/media/corporate/allfiles/document/professional-resources/ethics/apes-215.pdf

Flexstudy. (2015). Forensic Accounting and the Expert Witness. Retrieved from http://www.flexstudy.com/catalog/schpdf.cfm?coursenum=95063

Vicarious Liability and Crime Within Business

The four major categories of crime in the business world include,

• white collar crime 
• organised crime 
• computer crime 
• regulatory offences (Australian Business Law, 2014)

These offences are conducted with the intention of financial gain and usually involve large amounts of money (Australian Business Law, 2014). Fraud and theft are characteristics of this type of crime and results in economic loss for the business and investors (Farlax Inc, 2016)

Vicarious liability was introduced into the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) through the Statutes Law Amendment (Director's Liability) Act 2013; it was introduced to try and combat the above mentioned crimes within business. This amendment made it an offence if directors or others are personally involved in the commission of the offence or have aided, abetted, counselled or procured its commission by the corporation (Van Akkeren, J., 2016). Basically, if the fraud or theft has occurred against the company during the employee's recruitment by that company, management or directors of that company are liable. This law is important to avoid management 'looking the other way' or even worse, getting involved in a fraud. With this, they are personally liable, even if they had no idea of the fraud, they are forced to stay accountable. I would recommend to management and directors to implement a strict policy regarding fraud and theft and ensure the company's culture on fraud is not lax and is strictly enforced if a situation did occur. 

References:

Australian Business Law (33rd ed.). (2014). Retrieved from http://intelliconnect.wkasiapacific.com/scion/secure/ctx_TRUE/index.jsp?1461234193445=&uAppCtx=RWI&cpid=WKAP-TAL-IC&is_citator=false&link_type=1&document_id=abl14Uio456843sl13163899&cfu=WKAP#page[3]

Farlax, Inc. (2016). White Collar Crime. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Crime

Van Akkeren, J. (2016) AYB115 Governance, Fraud and Investigation: Week 5 [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6282895-dt-content-rid-5915486_1/xid-5915486_1

Have IT Security Issues in Business been Minimised in 2016?

The need for security over IT within business is a necessity and over the years has become increasingly important as hackers and crackers are evolving and becoming more dangerous to businesses data and information. The COBIT 5 framework is a helpful framework to adopt when evaluating information security. Figure 1 shows the seven enablers of COBIT 5 that need to be considered and adapted into each business. 

Figure 1: COBIT 5 Enterprise Enablers. Adapted from "COBIT 5 A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT" by ISACA, 2012, p. 27.

Even personally, I know that the need for addressing security is still a top priority as just last year (2015) my friend was targeted with ransom ware through an email regarding a parcel awaiting collection at Australia Post. They thought this email to be true as they actually were waiting for a parcel through Australia Post, so thinking they were doing the right thing they clicked on the link which in turn infected their computer. To gain access back to their files a ransom was demanded, they decided that the risk of not getting their files back was too high as they had no other backups anywhere so they paid the ransom. After this, the computer was unlocked, however, some of the files had been deleted anyway with no way of retrieving them. I witnessed the effects of this cyber attack and imagine it would be crushing for a business to be open to this type of attack on their files, proving that the need for addressing security has not been minimised in 2016.




References:

ISACA. (2012). COBIT 5 A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. Retrieved from https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6236971-dt-content-rid-5743722_1/courses/AYB115_16se1/COBIT5-Framework-English.pdf

Should Management be Separated from Governance Policy-Making?

Separation between management of a company and the governance policy-makers of a company are essential in avoiding fraud, bribery and corruption; the highest risks associated seen with amalgamation of management and governance policy-makers. Good governance policies keep a company honest and if there were a break down of this separation, management will grow complacent and corrupt (Sun, L., 2016). 

According to the COBIT 5 framework;  a business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT, principle 5 sets out the need for separation of management and governance policy-making. The COBIT 5 includes the following key areas for separation of governance and management as seen in figure 1 and should be adapted to each individual company (ISACA, 2012). The COBIT 5 Framework can be viewed through the link and should be reviewed to understand governance and management and how they should be adopted within business.  

Figure 1: Governance and Management Key Areas. Adapted from "COBIT 5 A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT" by ISACA, 2012, p. 32.

Potential risks relating to not separating management and governance policy-makers is that management (also including lower level employees) are not kept accountable for their actions in making decisions; evaluations of how managers are undertaking business is an important factor of governance. A major example of bad separation of management and governance policy making is the collapse of Enron in 2001.

References:

ISACA. (2012). COBIT 5 A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. Retrieved from https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6236971-dt-content-rid-5743722_1/courses/AYB115_16se1/COBIT5-Framework-English.pdf

Sun, L. (2016). Why is Corporate Governance Important? Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/618/why-is-corporate-governance-important/