Fraud
Phase 2 Planning
Due: 18 May 2013
Required:
Given the details established in phase 1 (Instigation) and further details below you are required to prepare a 1-2 page document stating your investigative hypothesis and then deduce your strategy for proving/denying your hypothesis. Your deduction should include a table with three columns stating the information you propose to review, where the data would be found and what you are specifically looking for in analysing the data. Information – what information do you need to prove/deny hypothesis? | Data – where is that data collected/stored/available? | Knowledge/evidence – what knowledge/evidence do I want to get from analysing this data with respect to the hypothesis? | | | |
Details:
Note the predication ‘dob-in’ stated in phase 1 information. The whistleblower (Jill Janssen, Assistant Manager) has made a formal statement stating that on 23 March 2012 she noticed Roger Juchau had signed a delivery docket for two boxes of quiches (6 per box) when he only brought one box into the kitchen. Rodger had picked the quiches up from his father’s business that supplies wholesale foods.
She further states that she notices boxes of quiches being regularly ordered (that is delivery dockets being processed) however sales of quiches would not justify regular orders. She has noted that the delivery dockets are always for multiples of full boxes however the boxes arrive having been opened, frequently without a top on the box.
Janssen confirms that Juchau orders the schnitzels from his father’s business and that nobody else counts the deliveries before the delivery docket is signed. Payments are then made by head office based on the quantity information on the delivery docket.
Dickson has confirmed that the gross margin for WFH meals is 10% less than other comparable kitchens.
Roger Juchau commenced with WFH 23/4/2010. Following an argument with Dickson he left his employment 5/6/2012. He has made a late unfair
Due: 18 May 2013
Required:
Given the details established in phase 1 (Instigation) and further details below you are required to prepare a 1-2 page document stating your investigative hypothesis and then deduce your strategy for proving/denying your hypothesis. Your deduction should include a table with three columns stating the information you propose to review, where the data would be found and what you are specifically looking for in analysing the data. Information – what information do you need to prove/deny hypothesis? | Data – where is that data collected/stored/available? | Knowledge/evidence – what knowledge/evidence do I want to get from analysing this data with respect to the hypothesis? | | | |
Details:
Note the predication ‘dob-in’ stated in phase 1 information. The whistleblower (Jill Janssen, Assistant Manager) has made a formal statement stating that on 23 March 2012 she noticed Roger Juchau had signed a delivery docket for two boxes of quiches (6 per box) when he only brought one box into the kitchen. Rodger had picked the quiches up from his father’s business that supplies wholesale foods.
She further states that she notices boxes of quiches being regularly ordered (that is delivery dockets being processed) however sales of quiches would not justify regular orders. She has noted that the delivery dockets are always for multiples of full boxes however the boxes arrive having been opened, frequently without a top on the box.
Janssen confirms that Juchau orders the schnitzels from his father’s business and that nobody else counts the deliveries before the delivery docket is signed. Payments are then made by head office based on the quantity information on the delivery docket.
Dickson has confirmed that the gross margin for WFH meals is 10% less than other comparable kitchens.
Roger Juchau commenced with WFH 23/4/2010. Following an argument with Dickson he left his employment 5/6/2012. He has made a late unfair