Reflective Writing Task – Blog #3

I agree with the statement that it is extremely important for forensic accountants to be familiar with the law.  Public interests are at threat if forensic accountants are ignorant of the rules of evidence.

I recently read an article about the ASIC vs Rich case that was settled in 2009.  During the proceedings of this case the Supreme Court of NSW identified a number of issues regarding the expert reports, specifically a report prepared by Paul Carter (a forensic accounting partner at PWC). The report prepared by Carter was deemed inadmissible for the purposes of the relevant proceedings, (Paul, 2017).  Carter failed to “disclose the real factual basis and true reasoning process of the opinions expressed was inadmissible because”, (Small, 2005).  This is a clear example of how a forensic accountant was ignorant of the rules of evidence.  

There are two elements that encompasses a forensic accounts role, investigation and litigation support.  A forensic account must be able to gather evidence, ensuring this evidence is not mishandled (for example distorting original copies), and then be able to present this evidence to a court of law.  The legal requirements that compromise the role of a forensic accountant can sometimes stand as the difference between a guilty and non-guilty verdict.

References

Paul, I. (2017). Forensic Accounting Reports - Sourcing of Information and Independence. FindLaw Australia. Retrieved from http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/693/forensic-accounting-reports-8211-sourcing-of-infor.aspx

Small, S. (2005). Admissibility of expert evidence. Australian Government Solicitor. Retrieved from http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/express-law/el22.pdf