ACFE Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) - Investigation CFE-Investigation Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (March 2026)

The Manual emphasizes that interviews should be held where the respondent feels comfortable and secure, not threatened:

“When possible, the interview should be held in a venue where the subject will feel comfortable and secure”.

Holding it in an uncomfortable setting is counterproductive and contrary to best practices.

The Fraud Examiners Manual states:

“The primary concern when analysing digital evidence is to maintain the integrity of the data at all times. Fraud examiners must be careful with computer equipment because a careless investigator might inadvertently alter important evidence”.

Examiners must look for both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

From the 2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual, under the section related to tracing financial transactions, specifically tracing the disposition of loan proceeds, the following objectives of tracing activities are explicitly outlined:

“Tracing the disposition of loan proceeds can help fraud examiners:

Determine whether loan proceeds were deposited into hidden or unknown accounts

Determine whether loan proceeds were used to pay off other loans

Identify the involvement of previously unknown individuals (potential witnesses)

Determine whether payments were made from hidden accounts

Identify undisclosed related-party transactions”

There is no mention that tracing loan proceeds can uncover previous civil offenses committed by the subject. Civil offenses refer to non-criminal violations (e.g., breach of contract, torts), which tracing of financial transactions like loan proceeds is not directly designed to uncover.

This is not a recognized purpose of tracing as taught in the CFE Investigation section. The core objectives revolve around uncovering hidden assets, hidden accounts, payments, and potential witnesses — not prior legal infractions.

Therefore, the correct answer is A, as it is the only option that is NOT true according to official CFE investigation materials.

 “As a general rule, questioning should proceed from the general to the specific; it is best to seek general information before details. A variation… is to begin with known information and work towards unknown areas”【9:2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual.pdf†L39-L51】.

 Random order is not recommended and breaks the logical flow.

“Alibis generally can be diffused by displaying physical evidence… evidence should be displayed one piece at a time, in reverse order of importance”【16:2014 International Fraud Examiners Manual.pdf†L11-L14】.

The Prep Guide warns: “The proper technique is not to lay it all out at once” .

Thus, showing everything at once is the least effective.

“The interviewer must not express disgust, outrage, or moral condemnation… the basic logic of obtaining confessions can be summed up as maximize sympathy and minimize the perception of moral wrongdoing”.

Sympathy creates an environment conducive to confession, while other options (third-party presence, emphasizing immorality, or pressuring with time) are explicitly discouraged.

When obtaining a verbal confession, the fraud examiner should secure details such as: admission of wrongdoing, number of instances, amount involved, dates, involvement of others, residual assets, and motive. However, it does not matter whether the suspect claims the conduct was an accident; that is not necessary to record.

The CFE Prep Guide clarifies:

“A fraud response plan outlines the actions… when suspicions of fraud have arisen. Because every fraud is different, the response plan should not outline how a fraud examination should be conducted. Instead, response plans should help organizations manage their responses and create environments to minimize risk and maximize the potential for success”.

Thus, statement D is false.

After alibis are diffused, suspects may become quiet, withdrawn, or even cry. This often indicates they are considering confession. At this point, the interviewer should present an alternative question, forcing a choice between two answers that both imply guilt, thus leading toward a benchmark admission.

“Once a denial is uttered, it becomes extremely difficult for the accused to change his response, because doing so would be an admission that he lied. Therefore, the interviewer must prevent an outright denial, thereby making it easier for the subject to confess”.

“One of the most effective techniques to stop or interrupt a denial is through a delaying tactic… the interviewer should attempt to delay the outright denial; he should not argue with the accused”.

Thus, Charles should interrupt with a delaying tactic.