HAMBERGER & WEISS LLP的动态

Solve Problems Like a Lawyer with the IRAC Method! ?????? Ever wondered how lawyers dissect complex issues and arrive at clear, logical conclusions? They use a method called IRAC Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Let's break it down: ?? Issue: Start by identifying the problem at hand, What's the main issue we need to address? This could be anything from a contractual dispute to a personal injury case ?? Rule: Next, Search for the rules and laws relevant to the situation. What does the law say about similar scenarios? Understanding the legal framework is crucial for making informed decisions. ??Application: Apply the rules to the specific facts of the case. How do they relate to what's happened? This step involves analyzing the details and determining their legal implications. ?? Conclusion: Finally, draw a conclusion based on the analysis. What's the resolution to the issue? This could involve recommending a course of action, assessing liability, or predicting potential outcomes. ----- How about an Example? Here we go: Issue: Let's say you're a manager at a retail store and one of your employees, Tom, has been accused of stealing from the cash register. The issue is whether Tom should be terminated for theft. Rule: According to store policy and employment law, theft is grounds for termination. However, there must be clear evidence to support the accusation, and Tom should have the opportunity to defend himself. Application: Gather all relevant information, such as eyewitness accounts, security footage, and Tom's employment record. Review store policies on theft and disciplinary procedures, Interview Tom to hear his side of the story, and assess the credibility of the evidence against him. Conclusion: After careful analysis, you determine that there is substantial evidence to support the accusation of theft against Tom. However, there are also mitigating factors to consider, such as Tom's otherwise clean. record and the possibility of misunderstanding. As a result, you decide to suspend Tom pending further investigation rather than terminating him immediately. This allows for a fair process while protecting the store's interests. By applying the IRAC method, you can systematically analyze complex workplace issues and make well-informed decisions that balance legal considerations with fairness and practicality. I hope you found this valuable. Thank you for taking the time to read through this lengthy post. Feel free to share your thoughts or experiences in the comments below! ???????? #lawstudents #lawschool #lawyer #legaltips Best Regards, Shayaan Zubair

Recently, the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General - Western Region Special Agent in Charge Weston King joined United States Attorney Vanessa R. Waldref of the Eastern District of Washington and our law enforcement partners in the COVID-19 Fraud Strike Force to announce that a Washington resident was sentenced for fraudulently obtaining more than $360,000 in COVID-19 relief funding. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, as well as restitution of $402,020.32, representing the total loss to the public as a result of the fraud. According to court documents and information presented at trial and the sentencing hearing, the defendant admitted to fraudulently obtaining $368,829 in PPP and EIDL funding for three purported businesses. The defendant admitted that these entities were not eligible for CARES Act funding because the businesses were not active as of February 2020. To fraudulently obtain COVID-19 program funds, the defendant submitted false and fraudulent payroll, revenue, and other information associated with the three purported businesses. The U.S. Attorney General established the Eastern Washington COVID-19 Fraud Strike Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across the government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. OIG will continue to work with the DOJ and law enforcement partners to highlight the many successes produced by cross-collaboration on behalf of American taxpayers and small businesses. Read more: https://ow.ly/49o250Tklyl

Over ￡1.17 million was lost to fraud in ‘23. Even though the number of total cases is marginally declining, the value of loss is creeping up. And that is just cases identified as fraud, what about the undetected losses? Legal firms are not immune…in fact the impact on cashflow is even greater, seeing as there is often such a high “lock up” value (both WIP + true receivables) with some firms seeing upwards of 150 days sales outstanding! As digital landscape evolves, so does the complexity of attacks. Gartner has also estimated that 45% of organisations will suffer software SC attacks by 2025.

https://lnkd.in/ezthMrY3 Another shocking fraud case highlighted by the excellent Ellen Leith. The criminal complicity here involving an internal employee with over 20 year’s experience and an external supplier to defraud a respected law firm is unfortunately an all-too-common occurrence. Within our own orbit of experience, we’ve knowledge of the fictitious supplier being created for this purpose with the assistance of Group Legal (Engineering sector) - stopped within a few months. We’ve also seen similar consequences within a client after it was revealed a?long-standing supplier colluded with a buyer to inflate product price and this was over many years (Retail). In this law firm, these?two obviously spotted the opportunity of weak controls, poor standard practice (three-way match anyone!) and most insidiously an abuse of trust driven by personal greed over three years. How sad..... and how unfortunate for the company’s reputation! Internal audit should have spotted the inadequate segregation of duties here (even if AP or?Procurement didn’t spot problems initially). Complacency is frequently the enemy here, fostering the “it’ll never happen to us” mentality, which is the antithesis of the continuous improvement mantra that we all should have. It’s been said in the comments that we cannot change the dedicated fraudster’s behaviour. Although the psychology may be true individually, it also tells us that if they feel they are likely to be caught, then they’ll probably not attempt to fish in your pool. A professional, regular, and exhaustive Recovery Audit built into your finance process will achieve this preventative action simply and effectively. Done well, the effort is very minimal for the organization, supports good practice, and the cost of your process improvement is typically easily covered by funds recovered! Reach out to find out here Aveiroe Europe LLP. #Fraudprevention #Accountspayable #Finance #Audit

In this edition of "Its an Accruel World" we look at fake companies. This EMS employee made up fictitious LLCs and billed those companies (himself). In the auditing world you have to look for fake invoices and companies. Years ago, it used to be difficult. Now, you can simply search online to verify if companies exist or its activity with others. The Virginia SCC has a public database to search entities. Also, you will want to inquire to employees to see if they have seen workers for those companies at the entity or know of the company. Board members (whoever opens the bank statements and reviews all invoices) should be inquiring too. Usually it is the Treasurer. But, lets be honest......how many look at those documents? Much less, take the time as a "volunteer" to inquire. Visit our website for more helpful tips on fraud prevention, including internal control.

Andrew Smith, partner at Corker Binning, writes for Law360 UK on the breadth and ambiguity of the new failure to prevent fraud offence that looks to target large organisations and hold them to account if they fail to prevent an associated person from committing fraud. ? While the offence is narrowly drafted in terms of who can commit it, it is broadly and ambiguously drafted in terms of how it can be committed.? ? --- The offence’s ambiguity lies in the undefined concepts of “benefit” and “victim”. “Given their novelty and significance to whether the organisation commits the failure to prevent fraud offences, it is surprising that the ECCTA does not define them,” comments Andrew. ? --- With only large businesses being able to commit the offence, the impact of this new measure will actually only affect very few companies. “Having introduced such ambitious breadth and ambiguity regarding how it can be committed, Parliament has ultimately narrowed down who can commit it,” says Andrew. “Because it will not apply to over 99% of commercial activity in England and Wales, the much-heralded game-changer will,?in reality, have little impact in fighting fraud.” ? --- Andrew claims that as a result, “significant fraud investigations will fall further into the hands of well-resourced companies and their professional advisers, leading to more deferred prosecution agreements, corporate pleas and eye-watering financial settlements.” Moreover, “it will likely lead?to inadequate investigation of individuals who may be complicit in the fraud, resulting in fewer prosecutions or prosecutions brought on insufficient evidential foundations.” ? “Banks and big data companies now face the challenging prospect of policing their platforms for the types of fraud committed by their users that not only enrich the fraudsters but bring additional financial benefit to the organisation.” Andrew concludes that “the corporate world is being asked, on pain of criminal sanction, to guard the gates and protect consumers.” ? ?? Read Andrew’s Law360 article here:?https://lnkd.in/e_S_23C6 ? #FraudPrevention #LegalNews #CorporateTransparency #LawEnforcement #BusinessCompliance

It is reassuring to read about Princess Royal speaking on fraud, given the context of the Greensill fraud, involving several British Prime Ministers (David Cameron, Borison Johnson), and Australian Heads of State (Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Premier Daniel Andrews, and former Defense Minister, Julie Bishop). The Greensill Scandal is covering up a larger scandal, involving fraud that leads directly to very senior Australian politicians. And a threat by Labor Attorney General Mark Dreyfus to prosecute whistleblowers who undermine the confidence of voters in government. The Greensill Scandal involves an attempted $7 billion insurance fraud against IAG (and its mum-and-pop investors). Politicians involved in the Greensill fraud used accounting firms to enable a deterioration in the application of accounting standards for trade debtors and creditors, to delay payment to suppliers as a mechanism for stripping them of their data assets into a data lake controlled from London. I allege the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games is a further Greensill-related fraud, costing taxpayers $380 million. And behind that is a grotesque series of organised crime operations that stripped Australians of our constitutional rights to freedom - our decentralised water rights, including via the Murray Darling Basin Plan. And they stripped dairy farming families of their assets via the industrial sabotage of Murray Goulburn by politicians, including then Agriculture & Water Minister, Barnaby Joyce, in parallel with human trafficking and exploitation of undocumented horticulture workers, with an asset stripping and money laundering real estate fraud that involved Coles and Woolworths in milk price wars, and that transferred property assets from local irrigation farmers to Olam International in Singapore (subsequently listed on the London Stock Exchange) and the Canadian Military and Police Pension Fund. The overall fraud further involved the use of military censorship over the relationship between Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) with a defence contractor that has close links to my own family, and their RMIT Fact Checker operation, compromised by a very serious conflict of interest which they then acted upon against the interests of Aboriginal tribes within the Murray Darling Basin, with them being denied their full cultural, economic and environmental management rights to water under Section 100 of the Australian Constitution and backed up by the Mabo and Wik decisions in the High Court of Australia, as a direct consequence of the Howard Government and former Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to obey the law and accept the decision of the High Court of Australia ... with all sides of Australian politics subsequently bribed to override our Section 100 rights to water (freedom), via the 2007 Water Act, without a referendum, and hidden behind the War in Iraq (War on Terror), as thousands of young American soldiers were dying fighting for freedom.

Another report of fraud by an employee. On this occasion the fraudster lied to the recruitment agency who hired him. He had a previous conviction for a very similar fraud. On this occasion he stole nearly ￡600,000 from his employer and as a result of his actions the company failed and other loyal employees lost their jobs. Forensic accountants were engaged after the business failed and spotted the fraud. I have seen similar issues with agency checks whereby a serial fraudster got employment when checks would have identified the issue. I would advise business owners to do your own checks on temps and temp to permanent particularly those in positions of trust and irrespective of how likeable and trustworthy the individual appears to be. Another case with the hallmarks of the fraud triangle: opportunity, motive and rationalisation. The fraud might also have been thwarted by engaging an accountant periodically to review the internal systems and do some spot checks. 'Manipulative' fraudster jailed for stealing ￡600k https://lnkd.in/eFxYgcNN #fraud #employeefraud #referencechecks #internalcontrols #fraudtriangle #forensicaccountant #internalaudit

Another day, another fraud. In this case, the perpetrator was a financial manager who handled funding for a youth development program for children of military families. What did she do? ? She created a fake organization to apply for grants ?Submitted false documents that the money was benefitting military members and their families ?The grant program would then issue the checks to her ?She signed the checks, forged signatures, or used the digital signature of her bosses ?Had the money sent to two addresses that were mailboxes she rented at UPS stores. ?She did this 49 times over six years. How big was the fraud? ? She received nearly $109 million. ? The money was used to buy real estate, jewelry, clothing, and cars. She had so many cars that during a search warrant they found many of the vehicles had dead batteries because they had not been driven for so long. How did she do this? ? Prosecutors said Janet Mello was able to steal so much because of her years of experience, expert knowledge of the grant program, and accumulated trust among her supervisors and co-workers. She had almost complete autonomy to pay vendors. How was the fraud discovered? ? The IRS began investigating after flagging her as a tax cheat when she reported an amount of income that did not match the properties she had. ? Mello’s penchant for extravagance is what brought her down. Delivery drivers referred to her as the “Gucci Goddess” on social media. What was the sentence? ? She was sentenced to 15 years in prison, must provide restitution to the Army and pay more than $31 million to the IRS. ? She forfeits ownership and interest in more than 30 properties in five states, 80 vehicles and motorcycles, $11 million in jewelry and handbags, and $18 million in cash found in six bank accounts. Lessons Learned ? Understand the process so you can follow the money ? Verify segregation of duties - someone else should have visibility into key activities ? Trust is not a control ? Fraud can occur anywhere ? Anyone can commit fraud ? Try to find out if there are indicators of a lifestyle beyond means ? All employees must receive fraud awareness training ? There is no limit to greed ? A good salary does not inoculate people from fraud; she made $120,000 a year compared to the median salary in San Antonio of $55,000. ? Use location mapping to confirm addresses make sense. To read more about this story, see https://lnkd.in/e9bU_4RM #fraud #fraudriskmanagement #fraudawareness #internalaudit #audit #risksandcontrols #irs #governmentauditing #usarmy

Truth truly is stranger than fiction. That’s a nice way of saying “you could not make this sh1t up.” 何谦Jane He and Pernille Hebert have produced a fascinating but quite vacuous piece of advice on how to prevent third party fraud. Usually I would say things like “it’s gobsmacking” “it’s unbelievable” or “these people have a crippling and near fatal case of attenuated head up their own arse syndrome”. But why bother. This rubbish speaks for itself. Lots of percentages are cited, tracking woolly, feelings-based stuff, like “perceptions”. These are very difficult to quantify, and when they are quantified, the results are as much a feature of how the question was phrased as they are about the underlying feelings. So why the reliance on all the percentages? Because it makes this drivel sound “sciencey”. But that’s just the tip. The roiling fetid iceberg of insult added to injury is yet to be revealed. Stuff like: fraud is often committed not from within, but by 3rd party partners. In fact studies show at least lots-and-lots-to-the-square-root-of-quite-a-bit-more percent. “Fraud remains a significant and ongoing challenge for organisations, but one of the most critical threats often comes from the people with whom they do business, rather than from within.” Peter John Collins springs to mind… [At this point I can almost not bring myself to say what I have to say next, because it’s so… prosaic… that it’s like having a battle of wits with unarmed opponents]: Give us an example Janey and Perrymoo of who such a rat-bag, scum-bag, piece of human filth might be, to betray, not just an enterprise by leaking and trafficking information, but indeed who might do something like that to their own country? And in the process rat-f*ck the country their own kids will grow up in? Maybe, say, by trafficking in secret tax information? And selling it to the biggest and worst tax evaders on earth? Is it just me, or does it appear that PwC doesn’t seem to get it? That to be offering advice like this demonstrates that they don’t seem to understand that it’s like, I dunno, I’m at a loss to come up with an example. The Pope advising parents on how to keep their children safe? Maybe someone would like to suggest an analogy in the comments?