Billing scheme, skimming, larceny, bribery, concealed expenses: in the AC465 Unit 2 scheme classification exercise, each of five hotline reports gets a branch of the fraud tree and a stated reason. Searches like "ac 465 unit 2 assignment example", "ac465 unit 2 sample" and "ac465 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished AC465 Unit 2 scheme classification exercise looks like
A classification table with five rows and four columns, the incident, the path through the fraud tree, the fact that decides the label, and the nearest alternative, followed by a page of discussion. The leasing agent who kept cash application fees before they reached the system sits under asset misappropriation, cash, skimming of unrecorded sales. The technician who carried new refrigerators out of the storage building is a noncash larceny, not misuse, because nothing came back. The purchasing manager given season tickets and a 6,000 consulting fee by a roofing contractor lands in corruption as bribery, since the payments preceded three awards. The regional vice president's coding of 612,000 of repairs as improvements is financial statement fraud on the concealed expenses branch. The sealcoating vendor carries two labels, with the condition that separates them.
How a AC465 Unit 2 example is structured
Incidents run from the least contested to the most, so the method is shown on easy cases before it meets a hard one. Each row follows the tree from its top level, corruption, asset misappropriation or financial statement fraud, down to the narrowest branch the facts support, and stops there; a row never claims a branch the facts leave open. The deciding-fact column carries the argument. For the roofing contractor it is timing: gifts before an award point to bribery, gifts after one with no prior arrangement to an illegal gratuity. The discussion page then takes the sealcoating vendor alone. If inspection shows no work at any billed lot, the scheme is a shell company billing scheme; if a relative's real company did work at inflated prices, it moves to a purchasing conflict of interest. The page ends by listing which record would decide between them.
Top branch first, then down
Every row names the top category before any sub-branch, so a grader can see where the path would have split. The table stops at the narrowest branch the facts can carry.
Cash that never reached the books
Application fees taken in cash before any record existed are skimming of unrecorded sales, not cash larceny, because the theft preceded recording. The row states that timing as the deciding fact.
Refrigerators and a roofing contract
The appliances are noncash larceny. The roofing gifts are bribery because they preceded three awards; had they followed without prior arrangement, the row would read illegal gratuity instead.
Repairs recorded as improvements
Capitalizing 612,000 of repairs overstated net income by concealing expenses. The row places it under financial statement fraud, whatever the vice president gained personally, because the statements themselves were altered.
One vendor, two possible branches
Shell company billing if nothing was done at any lot; purchasing conflict of interest if a related company performed real work at inflated prices. The inspection and the vendor's capacity decide between them.
Where marks go in AC465 Unit 2
Classification exercises reward the deciding fact more than the label. A table that names correct branches but gives no reason for any of them tends to earn only part of the credit, since placement reasoning is what the exercise measures. Placing the application fees under cash larceny misses the timing that defines skimming. Calling the roofing gifts a kickback without addressing when they were given skips the bribery and gratuity distinction the facts invite. Treating the capitalization as asset misappropriation because the vice president earned a bonus confuses the motive with the scheme. On the sealcoating vendor, committing to one label before any inspection is the error graders look for, as is ignoring the conflict of interest alternative. Inventing facts to settle a close call, such as a confession nobody reported, costs more than leaving the call conditional.
Get a AC465 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Incidents are classified exactly as the Unit 2 prompt words them, against whichever version of the fraud tree the course uses, so both belong in the request along with the rubric. Each is placed, its deciding fact named and the nearest alternative addressed, with conditional labels where a call stays open. A first custom exercise is free and returns in 24-48h.
AC465 Unit 2 questions, answered
What is the ACFE fraud tree?
It is the Occupational Fraud and Abuse Classification System published by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. It sorts occupational fraud into three top categories, corruption, asset misappropriation and financial statement fraud, and then into narrower schemes such as skimming, billing schemes and bribery. The exercise uses it as a classification framework for coursework and makes no claim about any credential or exam.
Why is the sealcoating vendor left conditional?
Because the facts available at this stage do not settle whether any work was performed, and that single fact moves the scheme between two branches. A fictitious vendor that did nothing is a shell company billing scheme; a real company tied to the employee that did work at inflated prices is a conflict of interest. The exercise states the condition rather than guessing, and it names the record that would resolve it.
Can the exercise use my section's incidents?
Yes. Send the incident descriptions exactly as the prompt gives them, the rubric and any required format. Each incident is classified from the top of the tree down, with the deciding fact and the nearest alternative stated, so a borderline case in your own set gets the same conditional treatment the vendor receives here.