CFE-Investigation Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) - Investigation Questions and Answers

The CFE Prep – Investigations states:

“If a fraud examiner gets a verbal confession from the fraudster, it does not matter whether the fraudster claims his conduct was an accident. The following items of information should be obtained … admission that the accused knew the conduct was wrong, facts known only to the confessor, the accused’s motive, approximate dates, involvement of others, physical evidence, and disposition of illicit income.”

Thus, the examiner does not need a statement about accident.

The Fraud Examiners Manual explains:

“Each transaction on a blockchain ledger is recorded with a cryptographic address… by analyzing these addresses, fraud examiners can sometimes establish patterns and connections that identify users or link them to criminal activity”.

Court records are frequently used in fraud investigations. Both the Prep Guide and the Manual agree that the court clerk’s office (court authorities) is the original and most reliable source of certified and accurate records.

Although commercial services and online databases exist, the manuals emphasize that reliability and certification are best ensured by going directly to the court where the case was filed.

Thus, the statement is True.

The 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual and CFE Prep - Investigations explicitly state:

“Like some printers, copiers and other multifunction machines might have internal storage devices that store relevant data. In fact, almost every copier built since 2002 has a hard drive that stores images of documents the machines have copied, scanned, or emailed. Some copiers store user access records and a history of copies made. … when seizing a computer for forensic analysis, it is generally necessary to seize any copiers and scanners connected to it.”

Thus, the correct answer is C.

A memorandum recording a whistleblower tip is a written record. The Fraud Examiners Manual defines documentary evidence as evidence “presented in the form of documents such as memoranda, contracts, emails, or other records”. Testimonial evidence comes from oral statements; here, the memorandum itself is the evidence, so it is documentary.

Observing signs of wealth (sports car, home remodeling) may raise suspicion, but by itself it does not provide sufficient predication to accuse or notify management of fraud. The proper next step is to conduct discreet inquiries to determine if further evidence exists before escalating.

Social media content is dynamic—posts can be edited, deleted, or moved—so fraud examiners must preserve relevant information promptly and in a manner that supports authenticity and admissibility. CFE investigative guidance emphasizes that documentary (including digital) evidence carries limited value in legal proceedings unless it can be shown to be authentic and in substantially the same condition as when collected. Simply saving a link (Option A) is weak because the underlying content can change, and a link does not preserve what was actually observed. Requesting a copy from the platform (Option B) is often impractical as a routine step and may require legal process; it also does not replace contemporaneous preservation by the examiner. A “forensic shutdown” (Option C) is not an appropriate method for preserving web-based social media content because the key evidence exists on external servers, not solely on the examiner’s machine. Proper practice is to download/capture and preserve what was observed while documenting the collection steps and maintaining a defensible chain of custody so authenticity can be established if needed in court.

Fraud examination reports are not written only for internal use. The 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual clearly emphasizes:

“When drafting a report, fraud examiners must consider who might end up reading it. Fraud examiners should keep in mind that the fraud examination report will be read by the general public and adverse parties. Under no circumstances should the fraud examiner prepare a communication with the idea that the information will not be disclosed to adverse third parties. Fraud examiners should draft their reports with this caveat in mind.”

The manual further specifies the wide range of potential readers:

*“There are many individuals and groups that might end up reading a fraud examination report, including the following parties:

Company insiders (managers, board of directors, owners, investors, etc.)

Attorneys (legal counsel, prosecutors, regulators, and defense counsel)

Defendants and witnesses

Press and media outlets

Judges or juries”*

This aligns with the CFE Prep - Investigations study guide, which also confirms:

“There are many parties that might read a fraud examination report, including company insiders, attorneys, defendants and witnesses, press and media outlets, and judges or juries.”

???? Interpretation:

The media may access the report through litigation disclosures or leaks.

Opposing legal counsel will review the report during discovery or trial.

Investors and owners (company insiders) are primary stakeholders.

Thus, the only correct choice is D. All of the above, because fraud examination reports must be written with all possible audiences in mind, ensuring accuracy, clarity, impartiality, and professionalism to withstand scrutiny from multiple directions.

Link analysis is described as a visual analytic tool that:

“Tracks the movement of money,”

“Demonstrates complex networks,”

“Helps identify indirect relationships with several degrees of separation,” and

“Discovers communications, patterns, and trends.”

It does not display financial ratios—that belongs to traditional financial statement/ratio analysis.

Both the Manual and CFE Prep guides emphasize that forensic imaging is essential because:

“Forensic analysis should not be performed on suspect devices directly because doing so can alter or damage digital evidence, and imaging… allows a fraud examiner to view and analyse… without altering the original data in any way”.

A forensic image is an exact, sector-by-sector copy of the drive. Thus, imaging preserves evidence integrity.

“The failure to preserve the integrity of digital evidence could result in evidence being deemed inadmissible in a legal proceeding, or, even if admitted, it might not be given much weight because evidence of questionable authenticity does not provide reliable proof.”

Therefore, D is the most accurate statement.

The Fraud Examiners Manual notes that when witnesses become hostile or argumentative, the interviewer should generally remain calm and avoid reacting to hostility. Reacting, reasoning, or arguing often escalates the situation. Instead, the interviewer should maintain control and neutrality .

During admission-seeking interviews, fraud examiners often employ rationalization techniques to help the suspect justify their misconduct and make it easier to confess. One of these rationalizations is the altruistic appeal.

From the 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual:

“Facilitators of communication are those socio-psychological forces that make conversations, including interviews, easier to accomplish. These facilitators require a basic understanding of what motivates people. The facilitators are: fulfilling expectations, recognition, altruistic appeals, sympathetic understanding, new experience, catharsis, need for meaning, and extrinsic rewards.”

From the CFE Prep - Investigations study guide:

“Facilitators of communication… include fulfilling expectations, recognition, altruistic appeals, sympathetic understanding, new experience, catharsis, need for meaning, and extrinsic rewards.”

???? Application to Scenario:

Beta says: “I know you didn’t do this for yourself; it was for your family.”

This is a classic altruistic appeal — reframing the suspect’s motive as selfless or for the benefit of others, rather than selfish wrongdoing.

The purpose is to reduce internal resistance to confessing by allowing the suspect to rationalize the act as being for a noble reason.

CFE interviewing guidance emphasizes that legal considerations can materially affect how interviews are conducted and that employee rights and obligations vary by jurisdiction and by case. In particular, whether a subject has a duty to cooperate (and the extent to which an organization can compel cooperation) can differ across jurisdictions and can also be constrained by contractual rights (e.g., union agreements, employment contracts) and local regulations. Because June’s subject is from a different jurisdiction, the most appropriate preparation step is to verify jurisdiction-specific rules that could limit compulsion or otherwise affect the interview’s legal permissibility and risk profile. Option D directly addresses this core cross-jurisdiction concern: what can legally be required of the subject. Option A is not a CFE-recommended preparatory focus; examiners should adapt to legal and procedural requirements rather than “teach” their own cultural practices to the subject. Option B is inappropriate and contrary to professional interviewing principles (the goal is cooperation, not discomfort). Option C is incorrect because consultation with counsel is not limited to “third jurisdiction” scenarios; the guidance underscores that interview-related legal risks and jurisdictional differences often warrant counsel input. Therefore, D best reflects CFE investigation knowledge for cross-jurisdiction interviewing readiness.

The Fraud Examiners Manual lists required steps before seizing evidence:

Obtain legal authority.

Review privacy issues.

Ensure software/hardware are validated.

Document surroundings, inspect for traps, image drives, etc.

There is no requirement to assemble a team exclusively of outside experts.

Before seizing evidence in a digital forensic investigation, the 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual outlines several critical steps:

Obtain legal authority / review orders:

“Before obtaining evidence, ensure that there is legal authority to seize evidence and review the data associated with the evidence. This might require obtaining a warrant in a criminal matter or ensuring that internal policies authorise seizure for an internal investigation.”

Determine privacy issues:

“Before the fraud examiner can seize evidence, he must take certain steps to help ensure that the evidence will be admissible: He must determine whether there are any privacy interests in the item(s) to be searched… In every case where it becomes necessary to seize a computer or other device capable of storing digital evidence, the investigator should consult with legal counsel.”

Use only trained professionals/software:

“It is important to allow a trained examiner to conduct a proper seizure and examination of digital evidence to help ensure that the information can be used in a legal proceeding.”

✅ These are all valid required steps.

In contrast, the idea that the team must be composed only of outside digital forensic experts is NOT a required step. The Manual stresses flexibility in team composition:

“Some organisations have their own in-house personnel… while others might prefer the use of an outside examiner. Sometimes retrieving digital data is as easy as searching the target computer’s hard drive, but other times retrieval requires a thorough knowledge of computers.”

Thus, requiring only outside experts is not a standard step, since investigations may use internal, external, or a mix of specialists depending on the situation.

The recommended questioning order is:

“As a general rule, questioning should proceed from the general to the specific; that is, it is best to seek general information before seeking details”.

This ensures the respondent provides a free narrative before narrowing down to specifics.

The Fraud Examiners Manual explains:

“Textual analytics is a method of using software to extract usable information from unstructured text data… it can categorise data to reveal patterns, sentiments, and relationships indicative of fraud”.

This is the key reason fraud examiners analyze textual/unstructured data.

“Fraud examinations should proceed from the general to the specific. That is, they should begin with general information that is known, starting at the periphery, and then move to the more specific details”.

This method avoids premature assumptions and ensures systematic evidence development.

CFE investigative guidance recognizes online databases as valuable tools for locating public records quickly, but it also highlights practical limitations. The most significant limitation is that availability and coverage differ widely by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions provide extensive online access to court files, property records, corporate registrations, and liens, while others provide limited access, partial indexing, or require in-person requests. This variability affects completeness and can create false negatives (records exist but are not available electronically). The guidance also cautions that online results may be abstracts, may not include supporting documentation, and can lag behind official updates—so investigators should verify key records with the originating agency when accuracy and completeness matter. Option A is not the primary limitation described; the more common problem is incomplete access rather than excessive detail. Option C is too absolute; errors can occur, but CFE methodology emphasizes validation, not the claim that records are “rarely correct.” Option D is also overstated; while source credibility matters, the fundamental limitation is uneven jurisdictional availability and completeness.

When obtaining a verbal confession, the fraud examiner should secure details such as: admission of wrongdoing, number of instances, amount involved, dates, involvement of others, residual assets, and motive. However, it does not matter whether the suspect claims the conduct was an accident; that is not necessary to record.

CFE interviewing guidance distinguishes among open, closed, and leading questions used during the fact-gathering portion of an interview. Closed questions require a precise, specific answer—commonly “yes/no,” but also specifics such as dates, amounts, and times. The question “What year did you start working in the accounting department?” seeks a specific date-like fact (a particular year) rather than inviting a narrative explanation. That is the hallmark of a closed question: it restricts the response to a narrow factual point and does not encourage expansive detail. By contrast, open questions (e.g., “Please describe the procedures to me”) are designed to elicit a broader, more descriptive answer. Leading questions are framed to suggest the answer and are often used to confirm information already known, whereas Quincy’s question does not embed a suggested response—he is simply requesting a specific historical fact. Therefore, under CFE definitions, this question is most accurately classified as closed.

The Fraud Examiners Manual stresses that interview notes should be kept separately for each interview, even if the session is electronically recorded, because recordings can fail or be challenged. Verbatim transcripts are not expected, and impressions of guilt should never be included. Best practice is to keep clear, accurate, separate records for every interview .

“Metadata information can help determine who wrote a document, who received, opened, copied, edited, moved, or printed the document, and when these events occurred”.

Thus, metadata is the best source for creation date.

Best practices emphasize separation:

“Interviews should be conducted one-on-one to reduce the possibility of collusion, contamination, or intimidation of witnesses” (Fraud Examiners Manual – Interviewing Guidelines).This ensures independent and uncontaminated statements.

Oral consent is generally not sufficient to obtain a suspect’s bank records. The CFE Prep - Investigations states:

“Accessing a subject’s bank records from financial institutions generally requires written consent. Oral consent is the least effective way to obtain permission”.

The Fraud Examiners Manual also notes that bank information can usually only be obtained with subpoena, search warrant, or written consent.

Explanation with Extracts = The Fraud Examiners Manual explains:

“Conducting digital forensic investigations in the cloud environment (i.e., cloud forensics) presents challenges not faced in traditional forensic practices… Some of the important challenges… Lack of frameworks and specialist tools, Lack of information accessibility, Lack of data control, Jurisdiction of storage…” .

Specifically: “With cloud computing, clients of cloud service providers do not have physical control of the media or the network on which their data resides, and this lack of data control can complicate efforts to collect data stored on the cloud” .

Thus, lack of data control is a unique challenge.

Explanation with Extracts = Pretexting is:

“The act of impersonating someone else or making false or misleading statements to obtain information from financial institutions. Several jurisdictions have prohibited pretexting against financial institutions”.Thus, falsely claiming to be the spouse constitutes illegal pretexting.

According to the CFE Prep - Investigations study guide:

“It is recommended that any witnesses who are considered potentially volatile be interviewed without advance notice. Surprise should be employed in any interview that is considered potentially volatile. In many instances, the potentially volatile respondent is unaware that he is going to be questioned, and will therefore be unprepared. If the interview is not conducted by surprise, the interviewer runs the risk of the respondent not showing up, showing up with a witness, or being present with counsel. A target’s friends, relatives, and romantic interests often make for a difficult interview. They perceive that the fraud examiner is deliberately targeting someone close to them.”

???? Interpretation for this scenario:

Brianna is described as very protective of her boyfriend, making her a potentially volatile witness.

Best practice is to avoid giving her advance notice (which might increase hostility, resentment, or allow preparation).

Conducting the interview with little or no notice reduces the risk of interference, ensures she is unprepared, and prevents her from appearing with legal counsel or allies.

The Fraud Examiners Manual lists specific queries for accounts payable analysis, including:

“Review recurring monthly expenses and compare to posted/paid invoices.”.

While comparing book vs. tax depreciation applies to asset management (not A/P), and identifying paycheck anomalies applies to payroll (not A/P), the most effective A/P-specific test is the recurring expense comparison. Hence, C is correct.

The 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual provides:

“Fraud examiners can use a correlation analysis to determine the relationships between different variables in raw data… For example, there should be a strong correlation between the independent and dependent variables because there is a direct relationship between them. Hotel costs should increase as the number of days travelled increases.”

CFE Prep – Investigations echoes this:

“Using the correlation analysis function, fraud examiners can determine the relationships between different variables in the raw data. For example… Hotel costs should increase as the number of days travelled increases.”

Thus, the most useful analysis is Correlation analysis.

When preparing to interview subjects across jurisdictions, fraud examiners must consider both legal rights and cultural differences. The Manual advises examiners to:

Research local laws governing the right to counsel during interviews.

Understand cultural norms (e.g., greetings, eye contact).Failing to observe these can damage credibility. Thus, it is most accurate that an examiner must determine whether the subject can legally insist on a lawyer’s presence .

“The interviewer generally should indicate his name and company, but he should avoid stating his title. In general, the more informal the interview, the more relaxed the respondent”.

Introducing oneself only by name and company (not title like CFE or auditor) avoids intimidation and builds cooperation.

During admission-seeking interviews, when suspects persist with denials or alibis, examiners are trained to diffuse them. Accepted techniques include:

Discussing testimony of witnesses,

Displaying physical evidence, and

Downplaying the strength of evidence.

However, manuals caution that discussing a suspect’s prior deceptions is not an effective or recommended method to diffuse alibis. It risks confrontation and may damage rapport, reducing chances of confession.

Therefore, option C is the exception.

The CFE Prep – Investigations explains:

“Metadata is a type of computer-generated data that can be helpful in a fraud investigation. Metadata information can help determine who wrote a document; who received, opened, copied, edited, moved, or printed the document; and when these events occurred” .

Thus, metadata is the most useful for identifying who created a document.

“In jurisdictions that regulate credit information and personal data, a fraud examiner will generally need a legally acceptable reason for accessing such information from third parties… some common circumstances include when: the individual has given consent”.

Thus, with the individual’s consent, Leslie could obtain the report.

The Manual says admission-seeking interviews should be conducted only when:

There is reasonable probability the subject committed the act,

All other reasonable investigative steps are complete, and

“The interviewer can reasonably control the place, time, and subject matter of the interview.”.Therefore, Erica must ensure control of time, place, and content before scheduling.

The Manual emphasizes that interviews should be held where the respondent feels comfortable and secure, not threatened:

“When possible, the interview should be held in a venue where the subject will feel comfortable and secure”.

Holding it in an uncomfortable setting is counterproductive and contrary to best practices.

A key principle in fraud examinations is confidentiality. Fraud examiners must avoid tipping off the suspect, which could lead to destruction of evidence or flight. Measures include limiting discussions, informing only those with a legitimate need-to-know, and investigating discreetly.

The Fraud Examiners Manual states:

“Records obtained from financial institutions are perhaps the single most important financial source available to a fraud examiner for tracing purposes”.

These records reveal deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and are essential in asset tracing.

Nonpublic records include banking, tax, credit, phone, credit card, and health care records.

Business entity organisational filings (corporate constitutions, articles of incorporation) are generally public records and can be obtained from the government.

Therefore, reviewing a company’s business filings does not require access to nonpublic records.

The 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual states:

“The information contained on a wire transfer generally will include the following items:

• The amount of the transfer

• The date of the transfer

• The name of the sender or originator

• The routing number of the originating bank or financial institution.”

Therefore, the correct answer is C.

“Introductory questions should be designed to establish rapport… Interviewers usually establish rapport by spending a few minutes with the respondent in an informal dialogue”.

Jason’s small talk about sports and compliments is clearly rapport building

Admission-seeking interviews are designed:

“to obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing… also to distinguish innocent individuals from culpable ones and to secure a signed written statement”.

The primary purpose is obtaining a valid confession.

Explanation with Extracts: In interviews, deceptive subjects often stall to gain time to construct plausible responses. The CFE Prep - Investigations notes that deceptive interviewees may ask for questions to be repeated or otherwise delay in order to think of what to say.

The Fraud Examiners Manual advises that fraud examiners should preserve and organize evidence, and one of the key steps is to establish a document database early. This allows examiners to track documents, index them, and link them to findings. Dusting for fingerprints, leaving originals behind, or organizing solely in chronological order are not standard best practices .

Body language alone (e.g., avoiding eye contact) cannot be taken as proof of deception. The Manual warns against drawing conclusions from a single behavioral cue:

“Avoiding eye contact is not directly linked to deception. Such behavior could stem from cultural norms, nervousness, or personality traits. Examiners should consider clusters of behavior, context, and corroborating evidence before concluding deception”.

Therefore, C is correct.

Textual analytics is used to extract investigative insight from unstructured data—communications and documents that are not stored in standard database fields—such as emails, chats, memos, and other narrative text. CFE investigative guidance explains that textual analysis applies linguistic methods and statistical techniques to identify themes, anomalies, and linkages within large volumes of text. Its purpose is not to determine truthfulness or deception with certainty (Option A), because text analytics cannot reliably “detect lies” in a definitive way. Nor is its primary objective to guarantee discovery of a confession (Option B); admissions can appear, but that is not the defining function of the approach. Option C aligns more with flow-of-funds visualization or link/relationship charting for financial movements rather than analyzing language content. Instead, textual analysis is performed to categorize and structure text so patterns, sentiments, recurring topics, and relationships between people and events become visible—helping examiners prioritize leads, identify risk indicators, and focus investigative testing on communications most indicative of potential fraud.

The Fraud Examiners Manual states:

“The expenditures method works best when the subject spends illicit income on consumables (e.g., travel and entertainment), because when the subject spends the illicit income, it will not cause an increase in net worth.”

CFE Prep confirms:

“The expenditures method … is best used when the subject spends illicit income on consumables (such as travel and entertainment) that would not cause an increase in net worth.”

Thus, the correct answer is A.

Benford’s Law applies to naturally occurring sets of numbers such as invoice amounts, expense reports, and transaction data. The Fraud Examiners Manual shows Benford’s Law tests applied to vendor payments to detect anomalies like duplicate or inflated invoices. Telephone numbers, employee IDs, and bank account numbers are assigned numbers and do not follow Benford’s distribution, so they are unsuitable for this test.

“Alibis generally can be diffused by displaying physical evidence… evidence should be displayed one piece at a time, in reverse order of importance”【16:2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual.pdf†L11-L14】.

The Prep Guide warns: “The proper technique is not to lay it all out at once” .

Thus, showing everything at once is the least effective.

The Fraud Examiners Manual states:

“Interviewers are encouraged to formulate their questions in a way that will not bring about a strong emotional reaction… emotive words of all types should be avoided during the introductory phase. Such words put people on the defensive”.

Thus, statement C is NOT true.