| Course | AC465 Fraud and Forensic Accounting |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Investigation plan |
| Length | About 600 words, 5 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 5
Preserve First, Ask Last: A Unit 5 Investigation Plan for a Property Manager's Sealcoating Vendor
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC465: Fraud and Forensic Accounting
Unit 5 Investigation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Lakeshore Living Communities, its people and every record are composite; the standard, manual and textbook cited are real.
Predication
The investigation rests on two things: a hotline report from a community manager that her lot was billed for sealcoating twice in two years and never touched, and the red flag review's seven indicators, led by the discovery that the vendor's address is the one the maintenance director listed for his emergency contact. Together these give a reasonable basis to proceed. The investigation runs at the direction of outside counsel, which affects how drafts are handled and may protect them as attorney work product.
Scheme Theory
Working hypothesis, held open to revision: invoices for sealcoating never performed were paid to an account connected to an employee. An alternative the plan must also test: the work was done by a legitimate contractor and resold through the vendor at a markup.
Phase 1: Preservation
Under the company's device and email policies, a forensic examiner images the maintenance director's company laptop and exports his mailbox, both hashed at collection. The payables system administrator exports the vendor master change log and the invoice approval log for January 2023 onward. These steps come first because they can be done without alerting anyone and because the records they capture can be altered or deleted once a subject knows an inquiry exists.
Phase 2: Internal Documents
The 47 invoices with their attachments; payment records and bank clearing data; work orders for each billed community; community manager logs and calendars for each invoice date; the certificate of insurance file; the regular sealcoating contractor's invoices for the same period. Each will show whether the billed work was scheduled, recorded or witnessed by anyone other than the director.
Phase 3: External Records
The vendor's state business registration and annual reports; county property records for the vendor's address; historical weather data for each invoice date, to test whether conditions allowed sealcoat to be applied; and the records of the account receiving the payments, requested through counsel by subpoena or the account holder's consent. The account records are the only evidence that can show where the money went.
Phase 4: Site Inspection
An independent pavement consultant inspects all 29 billed lots, photographs each, and estimates the age of any sealcoat present without being told which invoices are in question. Blind inspection prevents the consultant's opinion from being shaped by the investigation's theory.
Phase 5: Interviews
Interviews come last, in a separate schedule, beginning with people who have the least reason to shade their accounts and ending with the maintenance director.
Every phase before interviews can be completed quietly, and the interview is the one step that cannot, so the plan gathers documents, external records and physical evidence first and lets the subject learn of the inquiry only when the evidence is already preserved.
What Each Phase Could Rule Out
Evidence that the lots were sealcoated by anyone, or that the vendor has unrelated owners and other customers, would weaken the scheme theory, and the plan says it would be revised. An investigation should test its hypothesis, not only seek to confirm it (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2023). The forensic services standard requires work to be planned and supported by sufficient relevant data (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2019), and the plan's phases follow the evidence-gathering order recommended for fraud examinations (Albrecht et al., 2019).
References
Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. O., Albrecht, C. C., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2019). Fraud examination (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2019). Statement on Standards for Forensic Services No. 1. AICPA.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2023). Fraud examiners manual. ACFE.
Reading the AC 465 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth AC465 unit asks you to plan an investigation from predication to interviews. State the predication, the facts that justify opening an inquiry. Write the scheme theory as a hypothesis, with at least one alternative the plan must test. Organize collection into phases in a defensible order, preserving electronic evidence first, then internal documents, external records and physical evidence, with interviews last. For each item, say what it is, who holds it, under what authority it will be obtained and what it would establish or rule out. Explain why the order protects the inquiry. Address counsel's role and privilege. Close with what evidence would weaken the theory and how the plan would respond. Ground the sequence in SSFS No. 1 and ACFE guidance, with APA 7 references.
How this AC465 Unit 5 example is built
The sample's predication combines the hotline tip and the address match, and notes the inquiry runs at counsel's direction. The scheme theory states fictitious invoices paid to a connected account, with a pass-through alternative. Phase 1 images the laptop and mailbox under company policy and exports the change and approval logs, explaining why this comes first. Phase 2 lists invoices, payments, work orders, logs and insurance files. Phase 3 lists registration, property and weather records and the receiving account's records through counsel. Phase 4 has a consultant inspect all 29 lots blind. Phase 5 places interviews last. The highlighted sentence explains why everything before interviews can be done quietly. The plan closes on the evidence that would undercut its own theory, with Albrecht and colleagues and the ACFE's guidance behind it.
Where the points sit in the AC465 Unit 5 rubric
AC465 investigation plans are graded on sequence, completeness and objectivity. Predication should be stated with its factual basis. The scheme theory must be framed as a hypothesis with an alternative, since graders look for plans designed to test rather than confirm. Phases should follow a defensible order, with electronic preservation first and the subject's interview last, and the reason for the order should be explained. Each item should name its source, authority and what it would prove or rule out. Addressing counsel's role shows awareness of how real investigations are run. Naming evidence that would weaken the theory demonstrates objectivity. Practical detail, such as blind inspection, adds credit. Graders finish with the plan's organization and its APA 7 references.
AC465 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Many Unit 5 plans begin with interviewing the suspect, alerting him before records are preserved. Others list documents without saying what each would establish. The scheme theory is stated as fact. Electronic evidence is collected late or without hashing. External records, such as bank accounts, are listed without any authority to obtain them. The plan never considers what would disprove the theory. If your section's case involves payroll, expense reports or inventory, our writers can sequence the plan for that scheme.
Get an AC465 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
The case materials for Unit 5, the red flag findings if an earlier unit produced them, and the rubric are what the plan is built from. Phases, sources, the proposition each item tests and its disconfirming result are laid out for your facts, back in 24-48h, and the first custom plan is free. 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 2: Fraud Scheme Classification
- AC465 Unit 3: Fraud Triangle Case Analysis
- AC465 Unit 4: Vendor Red Flag Review
- 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 5: Intercompany Inventory Problem
- AC444 Unit 5: Seasonal Trend Visualization
- AC442 Unit 5: Journal Entry Query Problem
- AC112 Unit 5: Financial Statement Preparation
AC465 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why is the subject interviewed last?
Because an interview is the one step that cannot be taken quietly. Once the director knows an inquiry exists, records can change and other witnesses can be influenced. Interviewing neutral people first, with the documents already in hand, also means the subject's account can be compared with evidence already gathered rather than shaping what is collected afterward.
Why involve counsel in a coursework plan?
Because real investigations of this kind usually run at counsel's direction, which affects how drafts are handled and whether work product is protected, and because some records, such as another institution's bank records, generally require legal process. The plan describes those decision points without offering legal advice, which suits an assignment that tests sequencing and judgment.
Can the plan follow the case assigned in my section?
Yes. Send the case and any earlier findings along with the prompt and rubric. The scheme theory is drawn from your facts, the phases follow what those facts allow, and every item states what it would support and what would undercut it, so the plan can be followed step by step against the case.
Where can I find a free AC465 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds a complete AC465 Unit 5 investigation plan for a composite property manager's sealcoating vendor, with predication, a scheme theory, five phases, disconfirming evidence and APA 7 references.
Why is the pavement inspection blind in AC465 Unit 5?
The consultant is not told which invoices are disputed, so the opinion on each lot's sealcoat cannot be shaped by the investigation's theory, which makes it stronger evidence if challenged.