Write a summary of the document

It is stated in section C #2 of the code under due professional care that although CFEs are generally permitted to make conclusions based on appropriate evidence, they should be mindful that Article Five of the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics specifically prohibits CFEs from expressing opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of any person or party. The CFE can draw a reasonable conclusion in a fraud examination only if the conclusion is supported by the evidence which should be relevant, competent, and sufficient. The reason this rule is in place is to prevent and protect the CFE from taking over the decision-making that should be finalized by the judge and jury. The examiner’s job should only be to present the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. They are not responsible for deciding whether or not the person stole the funds, however, they can have their own belief. They are not permitted to make the decision that the suspect is guilty. They can however mention, it is my opinion that the client has suffered losses due to cash skimming, inventory fraud, or payroll schemes. In addition to this statement, they can then proceed with their findings to support their statement by saying “we can confirm that” and “we identified a total of.” If a payroll scheme occurred instead of saying the employee stole funds while processing payroll, it is much safer to say Emily Jones was overpaid by $5,000 and another payroll was processed that was out of the normal payroll periods (Associates of Certified Fraud Examiners., 2022b).

In some instances, the examiner may be hired by an attorney which can change the situation a little. In some instances, it is preferable for the examiner to be retained by counsel and not by the client. This way the examiner works under the supervision of an attorney. Any written communications between the fraud examiner and either the client or counsel should be marked as privileged and confidential. When hired by the client without the involvement of an attorney the attorney-client privilege would not protect communications between the client and the fraud examiner. The examiner must understand that communications with the client are vulnerable to disclosure in litigation or a government investigation. Communications with the attorney can be in the form of written and oral, and in some instances it might be advisable to communicate sensitive information and conclusions, and opinions orally rather than in writing, and in this instance I do think if the word stolen was used it may be okay once evidence found proves to be factual evidence and is shown in black and white the exact situation occurred such as video footage of someone stealing funds from the cash register by taking the money out walking to her bag and placing the money inside her bag which seems to be a few feet away from the register (Hilsen., 2007).