Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Audit and Investigations

A forensic auditor at Lotus Retail Ltd. interviews a suspect about suspected cash misappropriation. Which sequencing of interviews is generally recommended in the fraud examination process?

Interviews should start with neutral third parties, move to corroborating witnesses, and end with the suspect. This lets the examiner gather facts first, avoid alerting the suspect early, and confront him with corroborated evidence rather than rely on a confession.

  1. AInterview the suspect first, then the neutral witnesses
  2. BInterview neutral third parties first, then corroborating witnesses, and the suspect lastCorrect
  3. CInterview only the suspect and rely on a confession
  4. DInterview the suspect's colleagues together in a group

Explanation

Interviews progress from neutral parties to corroborating witnesses and finally the suspect, so the examiner has facts and documents before the confrontation. Seeing the suspect first alerts him and risks evidence destruction. Group interviews contaminate accounts, and relying only on a confession is weak.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Audit and Investigations shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Audit and InvestigationsFree diagnostic mock

More Audit and Investigations questions