| Course | ACC 646 Introduction to Forensic Accounting/ Fraud Exam |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | graduate milestone planning a fraud investigation |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MS Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ACC 646 Module 3
Investigation Plan: Contract Hauling Invoices, North Quarry
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
ACC 646: Introduction to Forensic Accounting and Fraud Examination
Milestone 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.
Investigation Plan: Contract Hauling Invoices, North Quarry
Introduction
The scheme ranked first in the Module Two classification is the hauling vendor. The hauler moves sand and gravel from the north quarry to the company's batch plants and its owner is married to the sister of the superintendent who signs off on its bills. This plan sets out how the investigation will determine whether the hauler billed for undelivered loads, who was involved and how much was lost (Golden et al., 2006).
Predication
Predication is the set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable professional to believe fraud may have occurred. Here it rests on three facts: the specific, credible tip; the controller's preliminary comparison showing about 4,100 invoiced loads last year but scale tickets for only about 3,030; and the family relationship between the hauler's owner and the approver, which the company's conflict of interest policy required to be disclosed and was not. Together they justify an examination. They do not establish fraud; there may be innocent explanations, such as loads weighed at a scale outside the system or billing errors.
Engagement Structure
The company's outside counsel will engage the forensic accounting firm, and the team will report to counsel and the owner, not to operations management. This structure supports a claim that the work is protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine if litigation follows. Only the owner, the controller and counsel will know of the investigation. The engagement letter will define the scope, state that the team will report findings and not opine on guilt, as the AICPA's forensic services standard requires, and provide for expanding the scope if new schemes appear.
Fraud Theory
The working hypothesis is that, from 2022 to the present, the north quarry superintendent approved invoices from the hauler for loads that were never weighed or delivered, and that some of the payments were shared with him. The plan also tests the alternatives: that the hauler alone padded invoices and the superintendent approved them carelessly; or that missing scale tickets reflect a system or process failure, not fraud. Evidence that supports any of these will be followed.
Objectives and Scope
The investigation will determine whether the hauler billed for loads not delivered; the number and value of any such loads; who knew of or approved them; whether payments flowed back to any employee; and which controls failed. The scope covers every invoice from the hauler since its first engagement in April 2022, about 9,800 loads and $5.9 million. Because all invoices will be tested, no sampling is needed for the core analysis.
Evidence Plan
The sequence is designed to secure evidence before anyone involved learns of the inquiry (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2023).
Evidence sequence
| Phase | Evidence | Purpose | Weeks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hauler invoices, payment records, vendor master file | Establish what was billed and paid | 1 to 2 |
| 1 | Scale house tickets and scale system logs | Establish what was weighed and loaded | 1 to 2 |
| 1 | Batch plant receiving logs and production records | Establish what was received and used | 2 to 3 |
| 1 | Weather records and quarry closure days | Identify loads billed when the quarry was closed | 2 |
| 2 | Nevada business filings, property and court records | Confirm hauler ownership and any links to the superintendent | 3 |
| 2 | Company email and phone records, preserved under counsel | Look for communications about invoices | 3 to 5 |
| 3 | Interviews of neutral witnesses: scale operators, plant receivers | Explain gaps and procedures | 6 |
| 4 | Hauler's records, by request or later subpoena | Driver logs, fuel, truck counts | 7 to 8 |
| 5 | Interview of hauler's owner | Explain discrepancies | 9 |
| 5 | Admission-seeking interview of the superintendent | Obtain explanation or admission | 10 |
The core analysis matches every invoiced load to a scale ticket by date, truck number and weight, then to batch plant receipts. Loads with no ticket and no receipt are the population of suspected phantom loads. Loads billed on closure days, or exceeding the number of trucks the hauler owns multiplied by a reasonable number of trips per day, are strong indicators.
Legal Considerations
Several legal limits shape the plan. Company email and devices may be reviewed under the company's acceptable use policy, which employees sign, but personal accounts and devices may not. Any background check through a third-party agency on employees triggers the Fair Credit Reporting Act's notice requirements unless counsel advises an exception for investigations of suspected misconduct. Employees interviewed will receive an Upjohn warning that counsel represents the company, not them. The hauler's own records can be requested under the contract's audit clause, which allows the company to examine records supporting invoices for three years; if the hauler refuses, counsel can seek them through litigation.
Team, Budget and Timeline
The team includes a forensic accounting partner, a manager, a data analyst for the matching work and a former law enforcement investigator for public records and interviews, with counsel present at subject interviews. The budget is 420 hours over ten weeks, about $118,000 at blended rates, reviewed with the owner after phase one. Kranacher and Riley (2019) note that early data work often narrows an investigation's scope, so the budget for later phases may fall if the matching resolves most questions.
Quantifying the Loss
The loss will be measured only from evidence. For each invoiced load with no scale ticket and no batch plant receipt, the loss is the amount paid for that load. Loads with a receipt but no ticket, which could reflect a scale outage, will be reported separately as unsupported but not shown as lost. The report will also estimate, but label as an estimate, the cost of material the company bought from outside suppliers to replace sand and gravel it believed it had hauled internally, if the analysis shows plants ran short. Interest and investigation costs will be listed separately for any insurance claim. Keeping proven, unsupported and estimated amounts apart allows counsel to choose which to pursue and protects the analysis from challenge.
Deliverables
The team will deliver a privileged findings report to counsel describing the procedures performed, the facts found, the quantified loss supported by evidence, the control failures and the limits of the work. It will not state that anyone committed fraud.
References
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2023). Fraud examiners manual (2023 ed.). Author.
Golden, T. W., Skalak, S. L., & Clayton, M. M. (2006). A guide to forensic accounting investigation. Wiley.
Kranacher, M.-J., & Riley, R. A. (2019). Forensic accounting and fraud examination (2nd ed.). Wiley.
What the ACC 646 Module 3 instructions ask for
The first ACC 646 milestone usually asks you to plan an investigation of a suspected fraud in the case. Plan to establish predication, define the engagement and who it reports to, state the fraud theory or hypothesis, set objectives and scope, and lay out the evidence to be gathered in a sequence that protects it, usually documents and data first, then third-party records, then neutral witnesses and finally the subjects. Most versions also ask about legal considerations, the team and budget. Explain why each step comes where it does, because the order of an investigation is part of its quality, and graders look for plans that avoid alerting subjects before evidence is secure. A table of phases with timing makes the sequence easy to follow.
How this ACC 646 Module 3 milestone one example is built
The plan starts with predication: an anonymous tip plus a preliminary comparison showing about 4,100 invoiced loads against 3,030 scale tickets. The company's counsel engages the forensic team so that the work is protected as attorney work product. The fraud theory is that the superintendent approved invoices for loads the hauler did not deliver and shared the proceeds. The scope covers all invoices since the hauler began in 2022. The evidence sequence runs from invoices, scale tickets and batch plant receiving logs, through public records and the company's own email, to neutral witnesses, then the hauler and finally the superintendent. The plan budgets 420 hours over ten weeks and ends with a privileged findings report that states facts, not conclusions about guilt.
Where the ACC 646 Module 3 rubric puts the points
Rubrics for the first ACC 646 milestone typically score predication, the engagement structure, the fraud theory, objectives and scope, the evidence plan and its sequence, legal considerations, resources and use of sources. Strong milestones state a hypothesis that evidence could disprove as well as prove, sequence the work from least to most intrusive, protect privilege and evidence from the start, and consider innocent explanations. Graders also reward a realistic budget and a clear statement of what the final deliverable will and will not contain. Common deductions include interviewing subjects early, assuming guilt in the plan, omitting legal limits on employee or vendor inquiries and leaving the scope period undefined.
ACC 646 Module 3 help: the mistakes that cost points
Investigation plans most often slip on sequence: interviewing the suspect first gives them the chance to destroy records or align stories, so documents, data and neutral witnesses come first. A second weak spot is the fraud theory, which should be specific enough to test and should be revised as evidence arrives, including if it points to an innocent explanation. If your case involves financial statement fraud rather than misappropriation, the same structure applies, with more focus on journal entries and management communications. Write the hypothesis as a sentence that names who, what, how and when; every evidence step should test part of it. Then list the innocent explanations you will rule out.
Get ACC 646 Module 3 written to your instructions
Send the ACC 646 Milestone One guidelines and the case facts. The plan will establish predication, state a testable fraud theory, sequence the evidence work, address legal constraints and set resources and timing. Two days is the usual wait, and the first is free. 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 646 papers and related MS Accounting samples
- ACC 646 Module 1 Discussion: What a Forensic Accountant Does That an Auditor Does Not
- ACC 646 Module 2 Fraud Tree Assignment: Sorting the Schemes a Tip Uncovered
- ACC 646 Module 4 Discussion: Why a Trusted Superintendent Would Steal
- ACC 646 Module 5 Evidence Assignment: Gathering, Preserving and Testing the Records
- ACC 646 Module 6 Milestone Two: Following the Money From the Shell Company
- ACC 646 Module 7 Discussion: The Admission-Seeking Interview
- ACC 646 Module 8 Damages Assignment: Lost Profits From a Failed Cement Supply
- ACC 610 Module 2 Codification Research Assignment: Principal or Agent for Spraying Services
- ACC 620 Module 5 Pension Assignment: Cost and Funded Status of a Frozen Plan
- MBA 540 Module 7 Global Ethics and Social Responsibility Discussion
- ACC 640 Module 2 Client Acceptance Assignment: Taking Over After a Resignation
ACC 646 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ACC 646 Module 3 Milestone One sample?
This page includes a full ACC 646 Milestone One investigation plan for a contract hauler billing scheme.
What is predication in a fraud examination?
The totality of circumstances that would lead a reasonable, professionally trained person to believe a fraud has occurred, is occurring or will occur; examinations should not begin without it.
What is the fraud theory approach?
Analyzing available data, forming a hypothesis about what happened, testing it with evidence, and refining or discarding it as findings emerge.
Why should an investigation be engaged through counsel?
So that the work may be protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine if litigation follows.
In what order should evidence be gathered?
Generally documents and data first, then third-party records and neutral witnesses, then corroborating witnesses and finally the subjects, moving from least to most intrusive.