| Course | ACC 425 Interview Techniques/Legal Aspects Fraud |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | undergraduate fraud interview outline project for a corroborative witness |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | BS Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ACC 425 Module 4
Interviewing the Purchasing Director: A Corroborative Witness Outline for a Produce Kickback Investigation
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
ACC 425: Interview Techniques and Legal Aspects of Fraud
Project One
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Interviewing the Purchasing Director: A Corroborative Witness Outline for a Produce Kickback Investigation
Witness and Objectives
The purchasing director has led the wholesaler's purchasing department for nine years and directly supervises the produce buyer. He approved the produce broker as a vendor three years ago and signed off on its growing share. He is classified as a corroborative witness: he has central knowledge of how decisions were made, but the evidence does not suggest he received payments. He also has a stake in the outcome, because the scheme happened under his supervision. The interview has four objectives: to learn how produce vendors were selected and approved in practice; to hear what the buyer said in recommending the broker, and when; to establish whether competitive quotes or price checks were required and performed; and to learn whether he knew of any relationship between the buyer, the broker or the brother-in-law's company (Golden et al., 2006).
Setting and Introduction
The interview will take place in the small boardroom on the second floor, led by the forensic accountant with the human resources director taking notes. It is scheduled for an hour, with no time pressure stated to the witness.
Introduction: "Thank you for making time. As you may know, the company is reviewing how we buy produce, because prices to our stores have drawn complaints. You know that process better than anyone, so we'd like your help understanding how it works. Please take your time, and tell us if you don't know or don't remember something."
The introduction is accurate but does not reveal the suspicion about the buyer. It frames the director as an expert helping the company, which is true and encourages cooperation.
Open Narrative Phase
The first questions invite him to describe the process in his own words, without interruption. "Walk us through how a new produce vendor gets selected and approved, from the first contact to the first order." Then: "Think back to when the Texas broker was first approved. Picture where you were and what was happening in the department then. Tell us everything you remember about that decision, even details that seem small."
These questions draw on the cognitive interview, which asks witnesses to recall context and report everything. Memon et al. (2010) found that the method increases correct details recalled compared with standard interviews, with only a small increase in errors. A full narrative also gives the interviewers something to compare with the documents.
Focused Questions
After the narrative, focused questions fill gaps, still phrased neutrally.
"How did the broker's share of our produce purchases change over the last three years? What explained that change, as you understood it?"
"What did the buyer tell you about the broker's prices compared with other suppliers?"
"What is the policy on competitive quotes for produce? How often were quotes obtained for the broker's items?"
"Did you receive any complaints from stores about produce prices or quality? What did you do with them?"
"Do you know of any personal or family relationships between anyone in purchasing and any vendor?"
Each question is open-ended. None tells him what the investigation has found.
Documents
Only after the narrative and focused questions will the interviewer show him three documents: a chart of the broker's share by quarter, a sample comparison of the broker's prices with USDA terminal market reports and two approval emails in which he accepted the buyer's recommendation without quotes. "Can you help us understand this chart? What do you see?" Showing documents after his account allows the interviewers to note whether his explanation changes when confronted with the record, a more reliable signal than his demeanor (Vrij et al., 2010).
Conflict of Interest Policy
"Each year, managers sign the conflict of interest policy. Who in your department reviews those forms? Has anyone ever disclosed a relationship with a vendor?" These questions establish whether a control existed that should have caught the scheme and whether he performed it.
Closing
"Is there anything we haven't asked that you think we should know? Is there anyone else we should talk to? If you remember something later, please call me directly." He will be asked, politely and without any warning about consequences, not to discuss the interview with colleagues. Closing questions often produce the most useful leads, because witnesses offer information once they sense the interview is ending.
Handling Likely Responses
Three responses are likely, and each has a planned follow-up. If the director says the buyer's recommendations were always reliable and he saw no reason to seek quotes, the interviewer will ask how often he approved other vendors without quotes, establishing whether the broker was treated differently. If he becomes defensive about supervision, the interviewer will acknowledge the volume of his responsibilities and return to facts: what he saw, not what he should have seen. If he volunteers suspicion of the buyer, the interviewer will ask what prompted it and when, and will not share the investigation's findings in return. In each case the purpose is to keep him describing events rather than defending himself, since a defensive witness gives less detail.
The interviewers will also watch for his own exposure. Approving a vendor without quotes for three years could be negligent supervision, and he may minimize it. Inconsistencies between his account and the approval emails will be noted for counsel, but not challenged aggressively in this interview; the goal is information, not admission.
Documentation
The note-taker will record answers as close to verbatim as practical. Within the same day, both interviewers will prepare and sign a memorandum stating the date, place, people present, the substance of each answer and the documents shown. Notes and the memorandum will be stored in the investigation file.
Conclusion
The outline is designed to obtain the director's full account of vendor approvals before any document can shape it, to test that account against records, and to learn whether a control failed or was bypassed. Each section serves a stated objective, and the record it produces will support the remaining interviews and counsel's assessment.
References
Golden, T. W., Skalak, S. L., & Clayton, M. M. (2006). A guide to forensic accounting investigation. Wiley.
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 340-372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518
Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861
What the ACC 425 Module 4 instructions ask for
Project One in ACC 425 usually asks you to prepare a detailed outline for an interview in a fraud case, often of a witness rather than the subject. Expect to state objectives, plan the introduction and rapport, sequence questions from open to focused, decide when and how to present documents, include closing questions and plan documentation. Many versions ask you to explain the reasoning behind your structure and how it reflects research and professional guidance. Write questions in the words you would actually use, avoid leading or accusatory phrasing, plan a follow-up for the likeliest answers, and show how the outline will produce information that can be tested against the evidence already gathered and used in later interviews.
How this ACC 425 Module 4 project one example is built
The outline prepares an interview of the purchasing director, who supervised the buyer and approved the broker. Objectives are to learn how vendors were selected, what the buyer said about the broker, whether competitive quotes were obtained and whether the director knew of any relationship between the buyer and the broker. The introduction explains that the company is reviewing produce purchasing. An open narrative phase asks him to describe vendor selection from start to finish. Focused questions follow on the broker's rise, price complaints and quotes. Documents, approval emails and the broker share trend, are shown only after his account. Closing questions ask what else the examiners should know. Same-day memoranda follow.
Where the ACC 425 Module 4 rubric puts the points
Rubrics for ACC 425 Project One typically score the clarity of objectives, the introduction and rapport plan, the sequencing and quality of questions, the planned use of documents, closing and documentation, and the justification. Top papers phrase questions neutrally and openly at first, save documents until after the witness's account so they do not shape it, anticipate likely answers and follow-ups and link the design to research on memory and interviewing. Graders reward outlines that consider the witness's own exposure and how that may affect his answers. Common deductions include leading questions, early disclosure of the investigation's suspicions, outlines that are lists rather than plans and missing documentation steps.
ACC 425 Module 4 help: the mistakes that cost points
Interview outlines often lose points through leading questions that suggest the answer, through showing documents too early so the witness tailors his account, and through ignoring the witness's own stake in the outcome. Another gap is the closing: the last questions often produce the most useful leads. If your project calls for interviewing a neutral third party or a subject, the structure shifts in tone and order but the planning steps remain the same. Read each question aloud and ask whether it could be answered with a story rather than a yes or no; in the early part of an interview it usually should be.
Get ACC 425 Module 4 written to your instructions
Send the ACC 425 Project One guidelines, the case and the rubric. The outline will set objectives, script the introduction, sequence open and focused questions, plan when to use documents and how to close and document the interview, with the reason for each part. There is no fee for a first request, which usually takes two days. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More ACC 425 papers and related BS Accounting samples
- ACC 425 Module 1 Discussion: Where the Interview Fits in a Fraud Investigation
- ACC 425 Module 2 Interview Planning Assignment: Who to Interview, in What Order and Why
- ACC 425 Module 3 Legal Elements Assignment: Matching the Kickback Facts to the Law
- ACC 345 Module 7 Project Two: The Valuation Report
- ACC 405 Module 8 Governmental and Not-for-Profit Assignment: A Town's Festival Fund and a Producers' Association
- ACC 318 Module 2 Long-Term Debt Assignment: Bonds Issued at a Discount and Called Early
- ACC 330 Module 2 Filing Status and Dependents Assignment: Four People and One Return
ACC 425 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ACC 425 Module 4 Project One sample?
This page holds a complete ACC 425 Module 4 Project One interview outline for a corroborative witness in a produce kickback case.
What is a corroborative witness?
A witness who can confirm or contradict facts relevant to the investigation, often because of his role in the process, but who is not believed to be a participant.
What is the cognitive interview?
A research-based method that encourages witnesses to recall freely and in detail, using techniques such as reinstating context and reporting everything, before focused questions.
When should documents be shown to a witness?
Usually after the witness has given his own account, so that his recollection is not shaped by the documents and inconsistencies can be identified.
Why avoid leading questions in fraud interviews?
They suggest the answer, can contaminate recollection and reduce the value of the statement as evidence.