MockTrial

When assessing that statement it is correct in that the expert report is a major part of an expert witness’s duty. However if a new expert witness is just relying on their expert report then they may be in for a shock, as there are certain circumstances that you can come unstuck. For example when I try to explain complex things to people who have no knowledge of that area then it can become a real challenge, if you use expert jargon and technical terms as the jury or judges can become confused and struggle to follow your logic.

Another thing is how and when it is your time to expand on your reply and explain your reasoning, this can be a challenge for new witnesses as sometimes they are required to only answer in a yes or no format but can become frustrated when are told to respond to the question and that an explanation is not needed. Also barristers can use this against you as they can argue and challenge your opinions on unrelated topics. Barristers when cross-examining you will really capitalise on this and drill into you repeating the same question until they get under your skin and try to twist your words to prove their argument.

When giving evidence it can also become slightly biased whether through assumptions and conclusions that you have drawn earlier in the investigation can bias your results and give just one side of an opinion when answering questions. This can be a problem as your main duty is to give your expert opinion on the evidence and not to draw conclusions on it, as this biases your opinion and can get you into trouble as your opinion should be based on facts and not assumptions and conclusions you have drawn.

A lot of these mistakes can be crucial ones, but are also learning points. If an expert witness makes these mistakes during a case then it can have consequences ranging from a warning from a judge up to not being allowed back into the court room as an expert witness again. But prevention of these mistakes is the best course of action, the most effect technique is to simply practice with colleagues beforehand especially if it is your first time as confidence in your abilities is key.

In conclusion these present some really important mistakes that can affect an expert witness’s role in the court; therefore I would definitely disagree with the statement as there is more to giving evidence in court other than just relying on the expert report. However most of these can be overcome with a lot of practice and becoming confident in your own abilities and knowledge. Over time you become better at being an expert witness and can learn from these mistakes. The most important lesson that new expert witnesses need to learn are that they need to practice beforehand and be confident and be themselves.

References

The Top Five Mistakes Expert Witnesses Make - FindLaw. (2016). Findlaw. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/the-top-five-mistakes-expert-witnesses-make.html

Giving Evidence as an Expert Witness

When asked to give evidence as an expert witness the court or the parties can have more than one expert witness assigned to one case. In this case section 23.15 was introduced so that the expert witnesses could compare and contrast their opinions raised in their expert reports. The section 23.15 (a) – (d) was introduced to save time during the court proceedings as expert witnesses were being asked the same questions and giving the same responses, so that it was wasting valuable time and extending court proceedings ("Expert evidence — Judicial Commission of New South Wales", 2016).

When evidence is being presented by an expert witness they must remember that their duty is to the court and not to their employer if employed by either the defence or the prosecution. This is because you are there to give your expert opinion on the evidence provided and you should not be biased towards one side of the court just because they are paying your wages. Another recommendation for giving evidence is that you should always disclose to the court when being questioned if it falls outside of your realm of expertise. This is because you are not an expert in this area so therefore your knowledge could be out of date or incomplete and therefore could be misinforming the court and therefore my influence the wrong decision ("Forensic Evidence Admissibility & Expert Witnesses: Rule 702", 2016).

References

Expert evidence — Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (2016). Judcom.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/expert_evidence.html

Forensic Evidence Admissibility & Expert Witnesses: Rule 702. (2016). Forensicsciencesimplified.org. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/legal/702.html

Fraud and Corporate Governance

In my opinion I would have to agree with this statement as a lot of research shows that if the leaders of a company are seen to do a task in an unethical or improper matter then it is seen as ok by others in the company ("Fraud, ethics and corporate governance - Dean Newlan | Insights Vol 12 - Nov 2012 | Faculty of Business and Economics | The University of Melbourne", 2016). This is similar to when I started my first job when I would see something some senior staff member doing and just assume that it was normal procedure until the next shift when I was told that I shouldn’t being doing that and it could get me fired if I wasn’t careful.

Similarly if there is a lack of promotion opportunities or discrimination over promotions, senior figures that see themselves above a company’s standards or short term goals in a hostile work environment then these can have a negative influence on employees and the corporate culture inside of a business and can create a toxic environment from which to work.

One of the best policies to prevent this sort of activities is to set out clear code of conduct that is included in the employee’s contract. This should include standards that are based on honesty, integrity and transparency. These standards should be enforced consistently and need to apply to all employees regardless of their hierarchy in the business (Dunkle, 2015).

References

Fraud, ethics and corporate governance - Dean Newlan | Insights Vol 12 - Nov 2012 | Faculty of Business and Economics | The University of Melbourne. (2016). Insights.unimelb.edu.au. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from http://insights.unimelb.edu.au/vol12/08_Newlan.html

Dunkle, R. (2015). Fraud Prevention Keys | Corporate Governance | Whistleblower Hotline |. Redflagreporting.com. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from http://www.redflagreporting.com/keys-to-preventing-fraud/

Interrogation Techniques

When looking at the statement it is obvious that the interviewers have used poor interviewing techniques. Some of the big do not’s of interviewing include the fact that you cannot deny a suspect medical attention, or basic needs such as food and water, sleep or even counsel. If these are not adhered to then the confession that has become of these will be deemed inadmissible by the court. Another do not is to make promises to suspects such as, “if you cooperate then you will get a lighter sentence”. As a forensic accountant you do not have the power to give these promises, also you cannot gain a confession from the fear of prejudice, for example you cannot scare them by telling them that it is better if they confess ("The Forensic Accounting Interview: A Powerful Weapon Against Fraud and Crime", 2015).

One good technique for a forensic accountant is the P.E.A.C.E technique which is based on positively engaging the suspect to build rapport and using non-aggressive communications. It is useful for first time offenders, which most fraudsters usually are, as they generally respond positively to this non-aggressive technique ("INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES", 2016). This is compared to the R.E.I.D technique which is a quite aggressive technique and usually involves intimidating the suspect into giving a confession, similar to when my parents would question me when I was younger about missing chocolate or lollies and would try to make me feel scared, and I would generally confess even if I didn’t do it. This is known as a false confession and it is the main criticism of the R.E.I.D technique.

References

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. (2016). Cga.ct.gov. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0071.htm

The Forensic Accounting Interview: A Powerful Weapon Against Fraud and Crime. (2015). FAU School of Accounting Executive Programs. Retrieved 27 May 2016, from https://accounting.fau.edu/blog/forensic-accounting-blog/the-forensic-accounting-interview/

Profiling Fraudsters

General strain theory is used to explain why individuals commit crime and outlines stress and strain as the main causes of people turning to criminal activity (McGivern, 2010). However to explain the turning of a group of individuals to turn to crime differential association theory is used and it states that people learn how to commit crime through influences of others through social interactions (Bosiakoh, 2012). Therefore I would be inclined to agree with the statement that Creesey’s fraud triangle addresses both of these. This is because his fraud triangle encompasses the need for pressure i.e. stress or strain, along with opportunity, which also relates to the influences of other people and how they interact around the work place, and rationalism which relates to the back story and why an individual or group committed fraud (De Kiewit, 2014).

Similar to most people who most commonly break speed limits there is usually motivation behind it, whether that is that we are running late or that we are in a hurry. The same is used when people commit fraud they are usually under financial pressure, such as a declining economy or a financial crisis may be some of the reasons why fraud is on the rise. Another reason could be that there are more opportunities, with a large proportion of Australia’s being small businesses they could have little internal controls and procedures and may be leaving a door open for potential fraud, similar to when my siblings leave cash on the side, I have the opportunity to take it and there’s a good likelihood they won’t even notice. I would therefore agree with the statement that Creesey’s triangle addresses both of the other theories.

References

McGivern, Michaela Siobhan. "The impact of cognitive coping on the strain-delinquency relationship: a test of general strain theory."

MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa, 2010.

http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/550.

Bosiakoh, T. (2012). Differential Association Theory. In Encyclopaedia of the sciences and learning. Springer US.

De Kiewit, M. (2014). Preventing Fraud: Behavioural Factors in the Fraud Triangle. Expert Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.kpmg.ch/preventing-fraud-behavioral-factors-fraud-triangle/

Being an Expert Witness

As part of a forensic accountant’s job they are required to research, analyse, interpret and present evidence on complex financial and business cases in court. Therefore as an expert witness being prejudiced in favour of one side would be unprofessional and could cost you your career.

Forensic accountant are also required submit written reports which are comprised of their expert opinion that is backed up with thorough research and evidence.

Another aspect of a forensic accountant job is to give a testimony as an expert witness in criminal cases that can include cases of embezzlement, tax evasion or other forms of fraud. A forensic accountant must follow the APES 215 guidelines on how to provide evidence or an expert opinion in a case.

One of my strategies to avoid partisan perceptions during a case would be that when I am assessing the case I would ensure that I do not neglect one side of the argument just because it would be easier to explain. I would also need to remove any common ground I could have by limiting my use of opinions and preferring the facts of the case. Therefore reducing the amount of bias in my reports.

Crime in Business

Amongst the most common types crime in the business world white collar crime is the most common but there is also organised crime, cybercrime and various offences through compliance and regulatory crimes. White collar crime is the act of using high social status or position within an organisation to commit a crime, whether that is through fraud, bribery or corruption. It usually involves high financial gain and can be very hard to detect as evident in the Queensland health and Tahitian prince scandal.

Organised crime is stereotypically referred to as a mafia or bikie crime and described as “serious crime planned, coordinated and conducted by people working together on a continuing basis” ("National Crime Agency - Organised crime groups", 2016).

Cybercrime is accessing unauthorised areas, modifying programs without proper authorisation; this includes using the internet to commit fraud and money lauder.

Under the Director’s liability act 2013, vicarious liability addresses issues when directors have been personally involved or can be connected to a criminal offence by a company. Even if they are unaware they can still be held liable.

Reference

National Crime Agency - Organised crime groups. (2016). Nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk. Retrieved 22 April 2016, from http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/crime-threats/organised-crime-groups