Investigating Embezzlement, Fraud, or other Forms of White-collar Crime
David Riley leads our forensic accounting team and has the experience and credentials that lead to success. He has detected fraud within public companies, private companies and government entities. Throughout the years, David Riley has:
- Performed as an expert regarding alleged accounting negligence involving the audits of specific “Petter’s Companies.”
- Led investigative team that resulted to the de-listing of a chip making company from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
- Found bankruptcy fraud including: fraudulent transfer (fraudulent conveyance), preferential treatment, the concealing of assets, undervaluing assets and misappropriations.
- Uncovered numerous misappropriations of assets and the hiding of assets in relation to marital dissolutions, dissenting/oppressed shareholder(s) and other matters.
- Investigated receiver, trustee and guardian wrongful acts.
- Conducted internal investigations of employee fraud, non-compliance, accounting irregularities and other activities.
- Exposed GAAP violations.
- Assisted companies, lawyers, insurance companies and other entities by providing forensic accounting services in a respectful, deliberate and efficient manner.
Whether we’re investigating embezzlement, fraud, or other forms of white-collar crime David Riley and his expert team have proven time and again that we will uncover the truth.
Fraud examination methodology assumes from the outset that all fraud cases will end up in litigation. This places the burden on the fraud examiner to see that investigative actions and analysis can withstand the harsh light of the courtroom. Evidence must be gathered legally, witnesses may not be threatened or coerced and confessions must be obtained voluntarily.
Fraud investigation differs from financial auditing on important issues such as: timing, scope, objective, relationship, methodology, and standard.
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners best describes the differences as:
| Issue | Auditing | Fraud Examination |
| Timing | Recurring Audits are conducted on a regular, recurring basis. | Nonrecurring Fraud examinations are nonrecurring. They are conducted only with sufficient predication. |
| Scope | General The scope of the audit is an examination of financial data. | Specific The fraud examination is conducted to resolve specific allegations. |
| Objective | Opinion An audit is generally conducted for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements or related information. | Affix Blame The fraud examination’s goal is to determine whether fraud has occurred or is occurring and to determine who is responsible. |
| Relationship | Nonadversarial The audit process is nonadversarial in nature. | Adversarial Fraud examinations, because they involve efforts to affix blame, are adversarial in nature. |
| Methodology | Audit Techniques Audits are conducted by examining financial data and obtaining corroborating evidence. | Fraud Examination Techniques Fraud examinations are conducted by (1) document examination; (2) review of outside data such as public records; and (3) interviews. |
| Standard | Professional skepticism Auditors are required to approach audits with professional skepticism. | Proof Fraud examiners approach the resolution of a fraud by attempting to establish sufficient proof to support or refute a fraud allegation. |
Source: Fraud Examiners Manual, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2003.
