Question

32. Evidence in fraud investigation establishes any key elements of a crime, link a suspect with a crime scene or a victim, establish the identity of a victim or suspect, corroborate verbal witness testimony, exonerate the innocent or otherwise, and give detectives leads to work with in the case Required a) Define and explain evidence in fraud investigation b) Describe the qualities of investigative evidence

Answer 1

Evidence in fraud Investigation mean a solid material thing,statment,clue which would explain the source or weight of fraud

source of the evidence

The source of the evidence refers to the basis for a witness’s knowledge: is the witness testifying to what he or she knows for a fact, or what the witness overheard on the train, or what the witness supposes or thinks might have happened? Obviously, evidence of which the witness has direct personal knowledge is considered to be weightier than information overheard from another or supposition. Investigators should always look for witnesses with direct personal knowledge (although in practice, as we’ll see below, it might not be so easy in many cases to know the source of the information.)

Direct and circumstantial evidence

Direct evidence, as the name implies, is evidence that tends to prove a fact directly – for example, a statement from an eyewitness or the cancelled check used for a bribe payment or a confession by the subject. Direct evidence is usually considered to be the strongest method of proof, but circumstantial evidence – evidence that tends to prove a fact indirectly, or by inference from other facts – also can be quite persuasive if presented correctly

Qualities of Evidence

• The plausibility, or the lack thereof, of the witness’s statements when compared to other evidence in the case (i.e., the extent to which the witness’s statement is corroborated);
• The consistency or inconsistency of the witness’s current and prior statements;
• Whether the witness’s statements promote his or her self-interest, or are neutral or even contrary to it (the latter are termed “statements against interest’ and are considered to be more credible);
• Whether the witness has a “reputation for truthfulness” or the contrary, and whether the witness previously has been convicted of a criminal offense (these factors are often admissible in court to attack the credibility of a witness);
• To a lesser extent, because of many witnesses’ legitimate concerns for their safety, whether the witness is willing to be identified, sign a statement, or give testimony.