31 Mar

One of my articles was cited in a book!

My article, Financial Statement Fraud in the Katrina Aftermath: A Whirlwind of Opportunities, was quoted on page 278 of the book Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases. That’s kind of cool, especially since I don’t think that’s ever happened before. I know that several of my articles are used in college courses on auditing and fraud examination, but I’ve never had one utilized as a resource for a book. (Not that I know of, anyway.)

The book is described:

This popular casebook is designed to provide those participating in trials with a concise understanding of the scope of the most commonly encountered types of expert testimony, and the nature of the results which may be expected from specialists. It explores both the potentialities and limitations of various types of expert proof. It considers qualifications needed for expertise in these various professional disciplines and discusses the status of the law concerning the various types of evidence encountered.The book first deals with the general concepts underlying expert opinion testimony, with the use of real and demonstrative evidence, and with opinion testimony of non-expert “skilled witnesses.” It then turns in succession to expert testimony based upon the physical sciences, and expert witnesses in the biological and life sciences. Finally, the book explores expert testimony in the behavioral sciences.

And the part with the attribution to my article:

Hurricane Katrina caused more than 1,300 deaths, destroyed thousands of homes and scattered the populace of New Orleans throughout the country. In the wake of this disaster came fraudsters. Opportunists took advantage of the disaster by altering financial statements and fraud examiners were there to reveal the crimes through forensic accounting. Overstating cleanup costs was common, but shipping, tourism and fishing industries are also both victim and perpetrator of fraud. A common task after the hurricane was to pay special attention to revenues recorded after the disaster. Companies which did not show a decrease in revenues in the months following the disaster were suspect in possible revenue reporting fraud.

Leave a Reply