| Course | AC465 Fraud and Forensic Accounting |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Scheme classification exercise |
| Length | About 550 words, 4 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC465 Unit 2
Five Hotline Reports on the Fraud Tree: A Unit 2 Scheme Classification Exercise at a Property Manager
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC465: Fraud and Forensic Accounting
Unit 2 Scheme Classification Exercise
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Lakeshore Living Communities, its staff and every incident are composite; the classification system, manual and textbook cited are real.
The Classification System
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners sorts occupational fraud into three main categories, asset misappropriation, corruption and financial statement fraud, each branching into scheme types (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2024). Classification matters because each type points to different evidence and different controls.
Report 1: Application Fees Kept Before Entry
A leasing agent at one community took cash application fees from prospective tenants and kept them before they were entered into the property system. Path: asset misappropriation, cash, skimming, unrecorded sales. Deciding fact: the cash never reached the books. Nearest alternative: cash larceny, which would apply had the fees been recorded and then taken; nothing was recorded, so the theft left no trace in the ledger.
Report 2: Refrigerators Carried Out
A maintenance technician removed new refrigerators from the storage building and sold them. Path: asset misappropriation, inventory and other assets, larceny. Deciding fact: the appliances were taken and never returned. Nearest alternative: misuse, which applies when an asset is borrowed and returned; nothing came back.
Report 3: Tickets and a Consulting Fee
A purchasing manager accepted season tickets and a $6,000 consulting fee from a roofing contractor, which then won three awards. Path: corruption, bribery. Deciding fact: the payments came before the awards. Nearest alternative: illegal gratuity, which rewards a decision after it is made without an agreement beforehand; the timing here points to bribery.
Report 4: Repairs Coded as Improvements
A regional vice president coded $612,000 of roof patching and unit turnover costs as capital improvements. Path: financial statement fraud, net worth or net income overstatement, concealed expenses. Deciding fact: the scheme changed reported results rather than removing assets. Nearest alternative: improper asset valuation; the costs were real but misclassified, so concealed expenses fits better.
Report 5: The Sealcoating Vendor
A vendor billed $389,270 over 26 months for sealcoating lots that community managers say were never touched. If no work was performed, the path is asset misappropriation, cash, fraudulent disbursements, billing schemes, shell company. If work was performed by a legitimate contractor and resold at a markup through the vendor, the path is a pass-through scheme, still a billing scheme but with a different loss calculation.
The vendor stays conditional because one fact, whether any lot was sealcoated, decides between a shell company and a pass-through, and labeling it before that fact is known would bias every step of the investigation that follows.
Why the Labels Matter
Each label directs the next step. Skimming calls for comparing applications with deposits; larceny for inventory counts; bribery for the contractor's payments and award files; concealed expenses for the coding approvals; and a billing scheme for the vendor's ownership and the work orders. Albrecht et al. (2019) note that schemes often combine types, and an investigator should be ready to revise a label as evidence arrives. The fraud examiners' manual makes the same point about classification as a hypothesis rather than a conclusion (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2023).
References
Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. O., Albrecht, C. C., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2019). Fraud examination (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2023). Fraud examiners manual. ACFE.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2024). Occupational fraud 2024: A report to the nations. ACFE.
What the AC465 Unit 2 assignment asks for
Unit 2 of AC465 asks you to classify incidents using a recognized fraud taxonomy and defend each classification. Introduce the system you are using, usually the ACFE's occupational fraud classification. For each incident, give the full path through the tree, the fact that decides the label and the nearest alternative branch with the reason it does not fit. Pay attention to distinctions the tree depends on: whether cash was recorded before it was taken, whether an asset was returned, whether a payment came before or after a decision, and whether the scheme altered statements or removed assets. Where the facts do not yet settle a label, say so and name the fact that would. Explain how each classification directs the next investigative step. Support the labels with the ACFE taxonomy and a textbook, cited in APA 7.
How the AC 465 Unit 2 example is put together
The sample introduces the ACFE's three categories. Report 1 places kept application fees under skimming of unrecorded sales, distinguishing cash larceny. Report 2 places refrigerators under noncash larceny rather than misuse. Report 3 places tickets and a $6,000 fee under bribery because they preceded three awards, distinguishing illegal gratuities. Report 4 places $612,000 of recoded repairs under concealed expenses rather than improper asset valuation. Report 5 leaves the sealcoating vendor between a shell company and a pass-through. The highlighted sentence explains why labeling it early would bias the investigation. A closing section shows the next step each label directs, citing Albrecht and colleagues on combined schemes and the ACFE manual on classification as hypothesis.
Reading the AC465 Unit 2 grading rubric
AC465 classification exercises earn credit for accurate paths through the tree, decisive facts and well-chosen alternatives. Each label should rest on a specific fact in the incident, and graders look for the nearest alternative branch with a reason it was rejected, since that shows the classification was considered rather than guessed. Distinctions such as skimming versus larceny and bribery versus gratuity must be applied correctly. Leaving a label conditional when facts are missing, and naming the deciding fact, shows judgment. Connecting each classification to the evidence it calls for shows why classification matters in practice. Accurate terminology from the taxonomy is expected. Purdue Global also credits a tidy table and correct APA 7 form.
AC465 Unit 2 help from the desk
Many Unit 2 exercises name a category without the path beneath it, such as asset misappropriation alone. Others choose labels by keyword: any cash becomes skimming, any gift becomes bribery. Alternatives are never considered. Financial statement fraud is confused with theft because money is involved. Every incident is labeled with certainty even when a key fact is unknown. If your section's incidents come from a case, a news story or a textbook, our writers can classify each one with its path, deciding fact and alternative.
Get an 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. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC465 papers and BS in Accounting samples
- AC465 Unit 1: Audit Versus Investigation Post
- AC465 Unit 3: Fraud Triangle Case Analysis
- AC465 Unit 4: Red Flag Review
- AC465 Unit 5: Investigation Plan
- AC465 Unit 6: Interview Question Sequence
- AC465 Unit 7: Evidence Log
- AC465 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC465 Unit 9: Findings Report
- AC465 Unit 10: Expert Testimony Exercise
- AC450 Unit 2: Purchase Price Allocation
- AC444 Unit 2: Investor Chart Critique
- AC442 Unit 2: Business Process Description
- AC112 Unit 2: Transaction Analysis Exercise
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.
Where can I find a free AC465 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds a complete AC465 Unit 2 scheme classification exercise for five hotline reports at a composite property manager, with fraud tree paths, deciding facts, alternatives and APA 7 references.
Why is the AC465 Unit 2 bribery report not an illegal gratuity?
The season tickets and the $6,000 consulting fee came before the roofing contractor won three awards. A gratuity rewards a decision afterward; payments made beforehand point to bribery.