CFE-Fraud-Investigations-and-Legal-Issues ACFE Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) - Fraud Investigations and Legal Issues Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

This question tests your knowledge of Domain 10.

In the context of Basic Principles of Evidence, specifically relating to privilege, the question asks about MOST ACCURATE.

The correct answer is B: Bob might have waived the privilege because he transmitted the protected information to a third party who has no need to know the information.

This question tests knowledge of evidence principles. The correct answer correctly distinguishes between types of evidence, admissibility requirements, or evidentiary privileges. Proper handling of evidence is crucial for successful fraud investigations and prosecutions.

Greg should conduct the fraud examination as though the case will result in litigation. This principle ensures that evidence is collected, preserved, documented, and analyzed in a manner consistent with legal standards. Even if the organization ultimately handles the matter internally, the examiner should assume that the evidence, report, notes, and testimony might later be examined in court, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, or employment litigation. Option A is too narrow because internal discipline is only one possible outcome. Option C is incorrect because the examiner must remain objective, not assume innocence or guilt. Option D may be possible, but media attention is not the controlling assumption. The proper investigative mindset is to prepare the matter as if legal proceedings will follow.

The correct answer is C. The CFE Manual explains that legal professional privileges generally protect confidential communications between a professional legal advisor and a client when the communications are made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. Thus, the usual elements include a communication between lawyer and client, a legal-advice purpose, and an intent that the communication remain confidential.

A written contract requiring confidentiality is not typically required for the privilege to apply. The privilege arises from the nature of the relationship and the purpose and confidentiality of the communication, not from a separate written agreement. Of course, engagement letters or representation agreements may exist in practice, but they are not themselves a standard legal element of privilege. That is why option C is the only choice that does not usually need to be present.

This distinction is important for fraud examiners because privileged communications can extend beyond direct attorney-client conversations in some circumstances, including communications with nonlawyer professionals assisting counsel, provided the communications remain confidential and are tied to legal advice. But the existence of privilege still does not depend on a written confidentiality contract. Therefore, C is the most accurate answer.

The Fraud Examiners Manual defines compliance verification as:

“Compliance verification determines whether company policies are met by employee transactions. For example, when employees are out of town, do they adhere to the company policy of not spending more than $30 a day for meals?” .

Thus, the correct function is compliance verification.

“Records obtained from financial institutions are perhaps the single most important financial source available to a fraud examiner for tracing purposes. They can be used as evidence for fraud, uncover criminal profits, identify criminal assets, and locate assets”.

The electronic device in option B is most likely to have its authenticity questioned because the storage area is only described as accessible to company employees generally, not restricted to authorized custodians or monitored through a clear chain of custody. Authenticity requires showing that evidence is what it purports to be and that it has not been materially altered. The ACFE materials explain that chain of custody documents who possessed the evidence, how it was stored, what was done with it, and how it left each custodian’s control. Options A, C, and D describe stronger safeguards, such as restricted access, monitoring, access logs, password protection, secure storage, or formal transfer. Option B creates a greater risk that unauthorized access or alteration could be alleged.

The correct answer is B. The CFE Manual explains that in adversarial proceedings, expert witnesses are usually chosen by the parties to the litigation, although the court may also appoint an independent expert in some circumstances. By contrast, in inquisitorial jurisdictions, judges typically appoint their own experts to evaluate technical matters. That makes option B the most accurate statement.

Option A is incorrect because it reverses the usual adversarial rule. Courts in adversarial systems may appoint experts, but they are not generally the only ones allowed to do so. Option C is incorrect because juries do not generally select expert witnesses in inquisitorial jurisdictions; the judge typically performs that function. Option D is also inaccurate because the parties are not primarily responsible for selecting experts in inquisitorial systems; again, that role usually belongs to the court or judge. The Manual further notes that in inquisitorial systems, expert selection is often viewed as an extension of the court’s authority and discretion. Therefore, the best statement is that parties usually choose experts in adversarial cases, while the court may also appoint experts when appropriate.

Search-warrant requirements generally apply to government authorities, not private parties acting independently. The Fraud Examiners Manual explains that search warrants grant government authorities the right to search premises or property for evidence. It also states that investigations by private parties may be conducted without special authority when the examiner acts prudently, lawfully, and in good faith. Because Beau is a private-company investigator and is not acting as a government agent, he generally does not need a search warrant to search company property such as an employee workstation, subject to privacy laws and company policy. Option D is especially risky because involving law enforcement could convert the search into government action. Option C is not required.

“Distractions should be kept to a minimum. Ideally, there should be no photographs, windows, or other objects in the room. Chairs should be placed about four to six feet apart, and the accused should not be permitted to sit behind any physical barriers, such as chairs, tables, or desks” .

The door should be closed (but not locked), not open .

Tables or desks should not be between interviewer and suspect .

Thus, the correct adjustment is removing distractions (pictures/posters).

The CFE Prep – Investigations notes:

“Court records are best obtained from the jurisdiction in which they were filed… The most accurate records are maintained by the court of original jurisdiction, not global or aggregated databases.”

Thus, the best place for Sam is the local court of jurisdiction, not a global database.

The 2014 Fraud Examiners Manual and CFE Prep list common concealment methods:

“Some common techniques for hiding assets include transferring assets into foreign trusts, overpaying taxes, prepaying on a home mortgage, obtaining a life insurance policy, and transferring assets into someone else’s name.”

Thus, the correct answer is D.

Sylvia’s expensive home, luxury jewelry, and high-end clothing are lifestyle red flags, especially because she is a purchasing manager, a role that can be vulnerable to kickbacks or conflicts of interest. However, red flags alone do not justify a direct accusation or aggressive search without proper authority. Predication means there is a reasonable basis to begin additional inquiry, not proof that fraud occurred. The appropriate next step is to conduct discreet inquiries about Sylvia’s responsibilities, vendor relationships, purchasing authority, and possible explanations for the lifestyle indicators. Searching email may require authorization and legal review. Informing executives that she might have committed fraud or confronting her directly would be premature. Therefore, option D is the proper investigative response.

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.

Admission-seeking questions are used when the examiner has a reasonable basis to believe the subject committed the act and wants to obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing. The most effective question is one that assumes the conduct occurred and encourages the subject to explain it, rather than merely deny it. Option D is strongest because it directly focuses on Harsha’s conduct and is phrased as though the personal purchases have already been established. Options A and C are informational questions, not admission-seeking questions. Option B is a closed yes-or-no question and uses accusatory wording that can encourage a denial. In admission-seeking interviews, the examiner should use disciplined phrasing designed to move the subject toward explanation and admission.

“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.

Deferred prosecution agreements are commonly used to resolve corporate misconduct while encouraging reform. Under such an agreement, prosecution is deferred while the organization satisfies specified conditions, such as cooperating with authorities, paying penalties, improving controls, disciplining wrongdoers, and enhancing compliance programs. A central goal is to encourage the company to change its corporate culture so similar misconduct does not recur. Option B describes plea bargaining more than a deferred prosecution agreement. Option A is incorrect because the goal is usually remediation, not dissolution. Option D is too narrow because the agreement does not merely wait for an internal investigation; it typically imposes forward-looking obligations. In fraud-related legal matters, deferred prosecution agreements are designed to promote accountability while encouraging organizational correction and compliance improvements.

Under the ACFE Fraud Examiners Manual, Law Section, specifically in the Money Laundering chapter , money services businesses MSBs are non-bank financial institutions that provide services such as currency exchange, money transmission, check cashing, issuing or selling money orders, and dealing in stored value. These entities are specifically recognized in anti-money laundering frameworks because of their exposure to cash-based and cross-border transactions.

A currency exchange clearly falls within the definition of an MSB because it engages in the exchange of one currency for another, often involving large volumes of cash transactions. Such businesses are subject to anti-money laundering compliance requirements, including customer identification procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting of suspicious transactions.

Depository institutions, including commercial or investment banks, are generally regulated as banks rather than MSBs. Furthermore, MSBs are often considered higher risk for money laundering due to the volume of cash transactions and international transfers they process. While MSBs are regulated, they do not typically have stricter regulations than full-service banks, which are subject to comprehensive prudential and AML supervision.

Therefore, the most accurate statement is that a currency exchange is classified as an MSB.

“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

Textual analytics is described as:

“a method of using software to extract usable information from unstructured text data… to reveal patterns, sentiments, and relationships indicative of fraud… Textual analytics provides the ability to uncover additional warning signs of rogue employee behavior”.

Its purpose is not to find direct admissions but to identify indicators and patterns.