To effectively test for fraud, all relevant transactions must be tested across all applicable business systems and applications. Analyzing business transactions at the source level helps auditors provide better insight and a more complete view as to the likelihood of fraud occurring. It helps focus investigative action to those transactions that are suspicious or illustrate control weaknesses that could be exploited by fraudsters. Follow-on tests should be performed to further that auditor’s understanding of the data and to search for symptoms of fraud in the data.1
There is a spectrum of analysis that can be deployed to detect fraud. It ranges from point-in-time analysis conducted in an ad hoc context for one-off fraud investigation or exploration, through to repetitive analysis of business processes where fraudulent activity is likely to more likely to occur. Ultimately, where the risk of fraud is high and the likelihood is as well, organizations can employ an “always on” or continuous approach to fraud detection – especially in those areas where preventative controls are not possible or effective.
Once an organization gets started with data analysis, they usually find that they want to do more and dig deeper into the data. Modern organizations have increased management demands for information and the audit paradigm is shifting from the traditional cyclical approach to a continuous and risk-based model. Technology therefore offers a range of solutions, varying by the size and sophistication of the audit organization. From ad hoc analysis, through to repeatable automated procedures, and continuous auditing and monitoring, analytics provide insight into the integrity of financial and business operations through transactional analysis. Technology provides more accurate audit reports and better insight into the internal controls framework, and improves the ability to access and manage business risk.
Fresenius had no controls whatsoever, All they had were individuals like Peter Connelly who sat in an office and looked at the ducks all day. No proactive monitoring of anything. Brush it under the rug. Even when he knew problems existed he did nothing. And this is corporate wide, I see nothing, I know nothing.
Are you suggesting that nothing was found? You Did not sell the liabilities. So you do know that problems exist. And obviously Quest knows this as well.
Now you are going to suggest that these problems were created by themselves with no help from individuals. One of Two things, you kept all this together to pull the wool over Quest (somewhat) or Quest knows. By the time the script is finished, Quest fires all involved and they have the business and paid a song. Remember "corporate serfdom" Fresenius damn well knows at this point exactly what took place.
I must give kudos to council, you think their job was to actually find the truth in their 10 month investigation When it really was the polar opposite, truth is not in the equation at all. Their job is to get the best result for their client. What did they tell Fresenius? Well, they said get this piece of shit off the books now! That is corporate law, I do not confirm nor deny....