Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2010 | Page 38

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

understated” (p. 54). Koletar reasoned that law enforcement models,
theories of social deviance, and learning organizations can help forensic professionals better understand motivating factors and perceptions
of employees as well as aid in the development of better strategies to
deter occupational fraud.

Koletar noted that a learning organization4 is very similar to a community since their members volunteer in the organization, share a
common language, and engage in power and politics. Koletar’s contention was that until the forensic profession improves its statistics,
definitions, and “anchor[s] itself conceptually within the organization
and within the academic community, it will forever drift in a state
of weakness” (p. 184). Koletar suggested that forensic professionals consider having a system in place to measure the problems that
they often face. Particularly, Koletar asserted, a vision is necessary to
provide guidance and direction, and to help an organization achieve
its goals.

How can an organization avoid becoming the next victim of occupational fraud? According to Koletar, expanded and meaningful research
is necessary to understand the causes of fraud. Koletar observes,
“[sadly] we in the forensic profession have [a] dirty little secret: we are
remarkably ineffective in dealing with fraud” (p. xiv). A positive first
step, Koletar insisted, is to look at the “criminal and law enforcement
response models” and determine why these models have been successful in the battle against crime. For example, in an effort to better
serve the community, law enforcement officials redefined the roles
of its members and asked them to pay particular attention to “what
is going on in the environment, whether that environment is the
community or the police department” (p. 28). In response, Herman
Goldstein, a former executive assistant to O.W. Wilson (the Superintendent of Police in Chicago, 1960) recognized the need for change
and subsequently developed a community policing model to address
these concerns. Goldstein emphasized, “[community policing was] an
effort to conceptualize the police as part of the community” (As cited
in Koletar, p. 19).

As forensic professionals, organizational pathologists and audit risk
managers, how do we effectively fight the battle against occupational
fraud? Koletar declared as forensic professionals, we must first formulate answers to the most basic questions, increase our funding
and research efforts, and continually deliver our anti-fraud message.
While all of the aforementioned observations are open for discussion, Koletar acknowledged the fact that it could take several years to
raise research funds and aggressive efforts taken before our anti-fraud
message is delivered effectively. Koletar observed that in order to
gain control of the fraud problem, “[forensic professionals must first]
understand three things [about occupational fraud]: what it is, what it
is not, and why it is important” (p. xv).

It is time for the forensic professional to reconsider his role in the
organization, prioritize his tasks, organize a professional body of
knowledge, and help organizations revisit their fraud efforts to curtail the opportunity for fraud. While these guided efforts are laudable in writing, Koletar did address the reality that people do not
always embrace change and how to offset the challenge. Additionally,
in order to revitalize the field, extensive training and cooperation
between field experts and regulators is necessary, but these subjects are
not fully examined by Koletar.

In order to minimize fraud in organizations, it is critically important
to implement an effective reporting mechanism, (e.g. a fraud hotline)
where employees can report a fraud suspect or fraudulent activity.
Thomas A. Buckhoff, CFE, pointed out that forensic accounting is a
rapidly growing field: “the demand for forensic accounting began to
increase in the mid-1970s when fraud detection experts were needed
to assist various law enforcement agencies in the rapidly-growing area
of white-collar crime” (p. 1).
Although Koletar posed some convincing arguments, the reality is
that the forensic profession is still evolving, expanding its sphere
of influence and continually attracting newly optimistic members
into its “community.” Creating a forensic community with shared
mores and beliefs remains an impressive challenge. Noticeably, more
universities are educating students about fraud prevention and detection due to the seriousness of the fraud problem. As perplexing as
the updated 2008 fraud figure of $600 billion may seem, perhaps
the only way to truly appreciate the field of forensic accounting is to
redefine leadership roles within our community to effectively lead,
guide and monitor our newest members.

To understand the underlying reasons why fraudsters commit fraud
in the first place, Koletar urges forensic professionals to “think about
research concerning punishment and deterrence [and try to increase]
the possibilities for cooperation” (p. 152-153). He stated they should
be mindful of a fraud perpetrator’s lifestyle and “begin to think about
profiling organizations” (p. 164). By focusing on the organization,
Koletar failed to emphasize