Trying to Regulate the South African Forensic Industry: ACFE SA: Part III: The Forensic Industry Standards Forum and Professional Standards

Introduction

Many professional bodies regulate the activities of their members, which is in many instances desirable, so as to protect the public trust. They can do this through the establishment of professional standards, approved bodies of knowledge, and more. However the key aspect is that the professional body regulates the standards of practitioners of that profession. It is when a professional body tries to create or regulate standards that do not form part of their profession, that they overreach. As I have discussed in my previous articles in this series, the ACFE SA Chapter appears to be trying to regulate the entire forensic industry in South Africa, and not just fraud examiners.

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners is the professional body for the fraud examination profession, and thus fraud examiners. The South African chapter represents the profession in South Africa and is registered as a professional body in South Africa.

Fraud Examiners are registered on the occupational framework as a formal occupation with Organising Framework of Occupations (OFO) code 2019242215. The Organising Framework of Occupations is a South African occupational classification system. Code 2019-242215 defines the fraud examiner as follows:

Fraud Examiner

Prevents, Detects and deters fraud by identifying unusual trends and fraud indicators in organisation processes and operations, determines whether organisations have adequate internal control and foster an adequate control environment to mitigate fraud risk. Conducts investigations of civil or criminal fraud, white-collar crime and identified fraud indicators

Establishing Professional Standards in South Africa

The Fraud Examiners Manual constitutes the professional body of knowledge for a fraud examiner, and thus constitutes the appropriate professional standards for the fraud examiner professional. These are set by the ACFE and are applicable globally to all Certified Fraud Examiners.

As at the time of writing the ACFE SA Chapter has published the following Professional Standards (https://www.acfesa.co.za/page-18418):

• Digital Forensics
• Health Fraud Examiners
• Forensic Document Examiners
• Forensic Standards for Polygraph Examiners
• Layered Voice Analysis
• Voice Stress Detection

All these professional standards, with the exception of the Health Fraud Examiners standard, were developed by the Forensic Industry Standard Forum (which had previously been named the Forensic Science Standards Forum). This article will focus on the standards emanating from this forum.

The Forensic Industry Standards Forum

According to the ACFE SA Chapter website (https://www.acfesa.co.za/page-18382) “the aim and purpose of the ACFE Forensic Industry Standard Forum is to represent and caters for all Industries, Science and non-Science Industries and disciplines and to bring the different forums and the forum leaders together. International standards and guidelines will be used as model to facilitate and promote the establishment of standards and guidelines for self-regulation of the South African environment”.

The ACFE SA Chapter states in Section A.1 of their standards documents that the aim of the Forensic Standard Forum is:

to standardise scientific methodologies employed in the course of forensic investigations, which are carried out in conjunction with criminal or civil legislation. Such investigations include almost all disciplines and practices involved.

Now this is where I start of have significant concerns. They refer to the aim to "standardise scientific methodologies", which seems somewhat out of place when referring to fraud examination as a profession. When one refers to scientific methodologies, they are generally applied to scientific and technical disciplines. For context, this Forensic Standards Forum was initially called the Forensic Science Standards Forum, and the name was changed after concerns were raised.

Of the six professional standards published to date, two of the standards relate to forensic sciences, three relate to psychophysiological disciplines, and only one to fraud examination.

It then states that they are:

instrumental to lead the way in terms of setting standards in all the disciplines of forensics applied during any given investigation. Although there are well-known and international standards in most of the disciplines, some changes may be required to address the situation in South Africa and Africa in the context of our environment and applicable legislation and/or legal systems and frameworks

This is counter to their initial statement of purpose in that they claim to standardize scientific methodologies, acknowledge the existence of existing standards, and then state that some changes may be needed in the context of the South African environment. Science works (and by extension scientific methodologies) because it is a science. It does not change how it works in different countries. In other words, if there are existing, peer-reviewed and scientifically accepted scientific standards in the various scientific disciplines, why is there a need to change anything? I accept if there is a specific legal issue that needs to be addressed, then this should form a supplemental standard for practitioners in that country. However, this would need to be specified.

The Locus Standi of the ACFE to Regulate Non-Fraud Examination Disciplines

When looking at the standards that the ACFE SA Chapter has approved on their website that originate from the Forensic Industry Standards Forum, it is clear that none of the standards are specific to fraud examination. They are certainly disciplines that are often used within fraud examinations, but not exclusively so.

The question that should be asked is what is the intention of the ACFE SA Chapter in proclaiming these standards? As a Certified Fraud Examiner, if the professional body wishes to develop standards for its members in the discipline of fraud examination, then it should do so, and in fact has already done so through the Fraud Examiners Manual. But the disciplines that the Forensic Industry Standards Forum have put together are not for the fraud examination discipline. As a forensic scientist I cannot comment on the psychophysiological disciplines, but the ACFE SA Chapter certainly has no locus standi to develop standards in the field of forensic science.

Forensic science and fraud examination are not the same discipline. I am a member of a number of professional bodies, many in the scientific or engineering field by virtue of being a forensic scientist in the field of digital and multimedia forensics. I am also a CFE and my CFE knowledge has proved invaluable in the digital forensic analysis of digital evidence in cyber fraud cases. Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that one of IT professional bodies that I am a member of, took it upon themselves to develop a set of professional standards for fraud examiners, and they claimed locus standi simply by virtue of the fact that fraud examiners used computer software such as spreadsheets, and not only that, but they only consulted a handful of CFE's that happened to be members of that body, and not the fraud examination profession. This would never be accepted by the ACFE, nor should it be, for the simple reason that this would be a case or professional overreach. So why is it that the ACFE SA Chapter feels that they have the necessary locus standi to set standards for other professions.

Conclusion

There are several members of the ACFE, who also members of the ACFE SA Chapter, who are practicing forensic scientists. We wear two hats, for two very different, but sometimes complimentary, professions. There is significant difference between forensic science and fraud examination. The fact of the matter is the ACFE is a professional body for fraud examiners, it is not a professional body for forensic scientists. It must be noted that these are standards being driven by the South African Chapter of the ACFE, and not the ACFE itself. In fact, I would be curious to hear the views of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners on the development of standards by any of its chapters, for other disciplines.

I am of the opinion that the ACFE SA Chapter has no locus standi to develop any such standards that fall outside its remit. They are certainly welcome to make suggestions?to other professional bodies, but they are in no place to claim a place as the standard body for a discipline that is not even their own.

In my next article, I will look at concerns with some of these standards.