Which of the following best describes why a chief audit executive might obtain the services of a fraud specialist to assist in a major fraud investigation'?

Question

Options

• AFraud specialists are better at using computer-assisted audit techniques
• BFraud specialists are better equipped to act as an expert witness in court
• CFraud specialists are better able to properly apply due professional care
• DFraud specialists are better at using crime scene investigation techniques

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  8% (3)
• D
  83% (30)

Explanation

Fraud specialists bring specialized investigative skills - evidence gathering, chain of custody procedures, and crime scene techniques - that are outside the standard internal auditor's training, making them essential when a major fraud investigation requires preserving and handling evidence that may be used in criminal proceedings.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is wrong because computer-assisted audit techniques (CAATs) are a core competency of internal auditors, not a distinguishing advantage of fraud specialists.
• B is wrong because serving as an expert witness is a potential outcome of an investigation, not the reason to engage a specialist during the investigation itself - and an internal auditor could also be called as a witness.
• C is wrong because due professional care is a universal professional standard that applies equally to all internal auditors; it is not a specialized skill of fraud specialists.

Memory tip: Link the word investigation in the question stem to investigative/crime scene techniques in option D - when a fraud rises to the level of a major investigation (potentially involving law enforcement and courts), you need someone who knows how to handle a crime scene, not just run audit software.

No community discussion yet for this question.