| Course | ACC 693 Investigating with Computers |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | graduate discussion post on anti-forensics and spoliation of digital evidence |
| Length | About 410 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MS Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ACC 693 Module 7
Module Seven Discussion
The Image Was Already Made
The project manager's interview ended at 4:10 p.m. on day twelve. He was placed on paid leave, asked to leave his laptop, and told the investigation would continue. He took the laptop anyway, saying it held personal files. At 11:52 that night he connected to the company's VPN from home. Over the next two hours a free disk-wiping utility was installed and run, and his OneDrive folder was emptied. Five days later, after the company's lawyer sent him a letter asking him to preserve all data, including on his phone, he reset the phone to factory settings.
Almost none of it mattered for the case. The verified laptop image from day five held the invoice template, the shortcut files and everything Milestone Two relied on. The legal hold placed on day one meant that OneDrive's deletions went into preserved storage, and the eleven invoice PDFs were already collected. The phone extraction, limited to three contacts, had been made with his consent five days before the reset.
The wipe also recorded itself. The VPN logs show his connection, the device management console shows the utility being installed and the laptop's encryption status changing, and OneDrive's audit log lists each deleted file with a time. Harris (2006) points out that anti-forensic activity often leaves its own trace, and Conlan et al. (2016) classify data wiping as one of several categories of artifact destruction that investigators should expect. In our case, the trace is arguably more useful than anything the wipe destroyed, because it shows awareness that the files mattered.
The legal consequences depend on the setting. The company has sued him to recover the $1.1 million, and his duty to preserve evidence was clear once he knew of the investigation and certainly after the letter. The best-known decision on a party's duty to keep electronic information once litigation is reasonably expected came out of a New York employment case (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 2004), and later amendments to the federal rules reserve the harshest sanctions, such as an instruction that the jury may presume the lost data were unfavorable, for cases where a party acted with intent to deprive. A wipe started hours after an interview is strong evidence of that intent.
For classmates: since the company lost almost nothing, should it still ask the court for an adverse inference, or is the wipe more persuasive presented simply as evidence of what he knew?
References
Conlan, K., Baggili, I., & Breitinger, F. (2016). Anti-forensics: Furthering digital forensic science through a new extended, granular taxonomy. Digital Investigation, 18, S66-S75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2016.04.006
Harris, R. (2006). Arriving at an anti-forensics consensus: Examining how to define and control the anti-forensics problem. Digital Investigation, 3, 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2006.06.005
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
What the ACC 693 Module 7 instructions ask for
The Module Seven discussion in ACC 693 asks about anti-forensics, the techniques people use to destroy, hide or falsify digital evidence, and how investigators respond. Prompts may ask you to describe common techniques, explain how they can be detected, discuss the legal consequences of destroying evidence or reflect on how preservation planning reduces the damage. A strong post uses a specific act, such as wiping a drive or resetting a phone, and traces what it destroyed, what it left behind and how the act itself can be proved. Legal consequences, including sanctions in civil cases and possible criminal charges, should be described accurately. Replies can ask what a classmate's case would have lost without early preservation.
How this ACC 693 Module 7 discussion example is built
The post recounts the night after the project manager's interview, when he connected to the company network from home, ran a free disk-wiping utility on his laptop and emptied his OneDrive folder, then reset his personal phone after receiving a preservation letter. It explains that the verified laptop image from day five and the server-side legal hold meant almost nothing of value was lost. It describes how the wipe was itself recorded in VPN logs, the device management console and OneDrive's audit log. It summarizes a taxonomy of anti-forensic methods, explains how courts may instruct juries to presume destroyed evidence was unfavorable, and asks classmates whether the company should seek such a sanction.
Where the ACC 693 Module 7 rubric puts the points
Instructors marking the anti-forensics thread tend to weigh your grasp of the techniques, analysis of their effect on an investigation, detection, legal consequences, use of sources and replies. High-scoring posts explain what a specific technique destroys and what it does not, how its use can be shown, and why preservation before contact matters. They describe legal consequences carefully, distinguishing civil sanctions for lost electronic information from criminal tampering. Posts that treat wiping as making evidence disappear entirely, or that overstate the sanctions courts impose, earn less. The best replies often come from asking what a classmate's company had preserved before the destructive act, because that question decides how much the act really cost. Replies gain credit when they identify an artifact or log that would record a classmate's example.
ACC 693 Module 7 help: the mistakes that cost points
Posts on anti-forensics sometimes list techniques, encryption, wiping, timestamp alteration, without showing what any of them does to an actual investigation. Choose one act and follow it: what data it touched, what logs or copies survived and how you would prove it happened. Another common weakness is legal imprecision; in federal civil cases, the strongest sanctions for lost electronic information generally require a finding that the party intended to deprive the other side of it, so explain the facts that would support that finding. Close by connecting the act to the preservation plan, since early imaging and legal holds are the main defense.
Get ACC 693 Module 7 written to your instructions
Send the ACC 693 Module 7 prompt. You will get a post that walks through one act of evidence destruction, what survived it and how the law treats it, ending on a question that splits the class. Two days, as a rule; a first post 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 693 papers and related MS Accounting samples
- ACC 693 Module 1 Discussion: What Computers Changed About Fraud Investigation
- ACC 693 Module 2 Data Analytics Assignment: Testing Three Years of Payables
- ACC 693 Module 3 Milestone One: The Digital Evidence Plan
- ACC 693 Module 4 Discussion: Personal Phones, Private Email and the Employer's Reach
- ACC 693 Module 5 Forensic Imaging Assignment: Acquiring the Laptop and the Phone
- ACC 693 Module 6 Milestone Two: What the Email and Invoice Files Show
- ACC 620 Module 9 Milestone Three: Consolidating a Monterrey Subsidiary
- MBA 687 Module 4 Change Model Diagnostic Report
- ACC 691 Module 7 Discussion: Why the Auditors Missed It
- ACC 690 Module 2 Derivatives Assignment: A Cash Flow Hedge of Corn Purchases
ACC 693 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ACC 693 Module 7 Discussion sample?
This page includes the full ACC 693 Module 7 post on a project manager who wiped his laptop and phone after an interview.
What is anti-forensics?
Techniques intended to destroy, hide, alter or obscure digital evidence, such as wiping drives, encrypting data, deleting logs or changing timestamps.
Can a wiped drive's contents be recovered?
Usually not from the wiped device itself, which is why investigators preserve images, server data and backups before a suspect is aware of the investigation.
What is spoliation of evidence?
The destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve it, when there is a duty to do so because litigation is pending or reasonably expected.
What sanctions can courts impose for destroyed electronic evidence?
Measures to cure the prejudice, and in serious cases where the party intended to deprive the other side, an instruction that the jury may presume the lost information was unfavorable, or dismissal or default.