{ "id": "competency:mcom-forensic-accounting--investigation", "code": "CDU-BUS-FOR-900", "level": "MM", "name": "MCom Forensic Accounting & Investigation", "faculty": "Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management", "lineage": [ { "institution": "Conquest Designer University", "year": 2026, "note": "authored from the brief and the ACFE body of knowledge; no prior institution is claimed" } ], "researchProject": "Screening before suspicion: digit, ratio, net-worth and duplication tests as a reproducible first pass on a ledger", "description": "The first-pass analytics of a fraud examination: first-digit conformity to Benford’s law with Nigrini’s MAD bands, the Beneish M-score for earnings manipulation, the net worth method of proving unexplained income, and the number-duplication test on payments.", "syllabus": [ "Digital analysis: Benford’s first-digit law, mean absolute deviation, chi-square, conformity bands", "Financial statement fraud: the eight Beneish indices and the M-score", "Indirect methods of proof: net worth, expenditures, unexplained funds", "Payment analytics: the number-duplication test, repeated amounts and their rows" ], "reference": { "Benford": "P(first digit d) = log10(1 + 1/d)", "MAD (first digit)": "mean |observed − expected| over d = 1..9; ≤ 0.006 close, ≤ 0.012 acceptable, ≤ 0.015 marginal, above: nonconformity (Nigrini 2012)", "Beneish M": "−4.84 + 0.920·DSRI + 0.528·GMI + 0.404·AQI + 0.892·SGI + 0.115·DEPI − 0.172·SGAI + 4.679·TATA − 0.327·LVGI; > −1.78 flags a likely manipulator", "Net worth method": "unexplained = (closing − opening net worth) + living expenses − known income" }, "role": "You are a certified fraud examiner reporting a screening result to counsel. Say what the test measures, show the numbers, and state plainly that a flag directs further work and proves nothing on its own.", "feeUsd": 1, "version": "1.0.0", "qualification": { "award": "MCom", "nqfLevel": 9, "qualificationType": "Master's Degree (HEQSF qualification type 9a)", "totalCredits": 180, "minCreditsAtExitLevel": 120, "iscedFields": [ "041", "042" ], "standards": [ "ACFE Fraud Examiners Manual — Financial Transactions and Fraud Schemes; Investigation (the CFE examination body of knowledge)", "Nigrini, M. J. (2012) Benford’s Law: Applications for Forensic Accounting, Auditing, and Fraud Detection, Wiley", "Beneish, M. D. (1999) The Detection of Earnings Manipulation, Financial Analysts Journal 55(5) 24–36", "IRS Internal Revenue Manual 9.5.9 — indirect methods of proof: the net worth method" ], "registration": "not registered" }, "modules": [ { "code": "CDU-BUS-FOR-900-901", "title": "Coursework — the executable units", "nqfLevel": 9, "credits": 60, "prerequisites": [], "coRequisites": [], "outcomes": [ "answer every unit of the qualification against its published reference, with the working shown" ], "assessment": { "formative": [ "worked examples re-run against the published reference", "seeded practice scenarios, deterministic per (pan, unit, attempt)" ], "summative": "every unit passed once through the seeded assessment (the seeded assessment room)", "passMark": 50, "subminimum": 40, "moderation": "internally assessed by the unit itself — its reference implementation is the marker; the working is published so anyone can re-run the mark (D-13.1 — no model marks anything)" }, "unitIds": [ "benford_first_digit", "beneish_m_score", "net_worth_method", "duplicate_amounts" ], "notionalHours": 600 }, { "code": "CDU-BUS-FOR-900-902", "title": "Research report", "nqfLevel": 9, "credits": 120, "prerequisites": [ "CDU-BUS-FOR-900-901" ], "coRequisites": [], "outcomes": [ "Screening before suspicion: digit, ratio, net-worth and duplication tests as a reproducible first pass on a ledger" ], "assessment": { "formative": [ "worked examples re-run against the published reference", "seeded practice scenarios, deterministic per (pan, unit, attempt)" ], "summative": "the research report, assessed against the qualification’s published reference block", "passMark": 50, "subminimum": 40, "moderation": "internally assessed by the unit itself — its reference implementation is the marker; the working is published so anyone can re-run the mark (D-13.1 — no model marks anything)" }, "unitIds": [], "notionalHours": 1200 } ], "units": [ { "id": "benford_first_digit", "name": "First-digit test (Benford)", "answers": "Do the leading digits of these amounts conform to Benford’s law, and how far do they deviate?", "example": { "amounts": [ 1120, 1380, 1460, 1975, 1042, 1210, 1833, 1598, 1099, 1305, 1712, 2150, 2890, 2431, 2077, 2666, 3120, 3490, 3005, 4210, 4890, 5120, 5775, 6340, 7010, 8450, 9320, 1188, 1523, 2260, 3675, 1407, 2555, 1066, 4402, 1960, 2780, 6150, 1254, 1839 ] }, "reference": "Nigrini (2012) Benford’s Law, ch. 5 (first-digit test, MAD conformity bands 0.006 / 0.012 / 0.015); amounts below 10 excluded", "signature": { "input": { "amounts": { "type": "number[]", "describe": "Transaction amounts; those below 10 are excluded, as the test prescribes" } }, "output": { "counted": { "type": "number", "describe": "Amounts tested (≥ 10)" }, "digitCounts": { "type": "number[]", "describe": "Observed count of each first digit 1..9" }, "mad": { "type": "number", "describe": "Mean absolute deviation from Benford" }, "chiSquare": { "type": "number", "describe": "Σ (O − E)² ÷ E over the nine digits (8 df)" }, "conformity": { "type": "string", "describe": "close, acceptable, marginal or nonconformity" } } } }, { "id": "beneish_m_score", "name": "Beneish M-score", "answers": "Do the eight Beneish indices put this company above the threshold for a likely earnings manipulator?", "example": { "dsri": 1.465, "gmi": 1.193, "aqi": 1.254, "sgi": 1.607, "depi": 1.077, "sgai": 1.041, "tata": 0.031, "lvgi": 1.111 }, "reference": "Beneish (1999) Financial Analysts Journal 55(5) 24–36: the eight-variable probit model and the −1.78 threshold", "signature": { "input": { "dsri": { "type": "number", "describe": "Days’ sales in receivables index", "min": 0 }, "gmi": { "type": "number", "describe": "Gross margin index", "min": 0 }, "aqi": { "type": "number", "describe": "Asset quality index", "min": 0 }, "sgi": { "type": "number", "describe": "Sales growth index", "min": 0 }, "depi": { "type": "number", "describe": "Depreciation index", "min": 0 }, "sgai": { "type": "number", "describe": "SG&A expense index", "min": 0 }, "tata": { "type": "number", "describe": "Total accruals to total assets", "min": -1, "max": 1 }, "lvgi": { "type": "number", "describe": "Leverage index", "min": 0 } }, "output": { "mScore": { "type": "number", "describe": "The M-score" }, "likelyManipulator": { "type": "boolean", "describe": "M > −1.78" } } } }, { "id": "net_worth_method", "name": "Net worth method: unexplained funds", "answers": "How much of the increase in a subject’s net worth, plus what they spent, is not explained by known income?", "example": { "openingAssets": 500000, "openingLiabilities": 200000, "closingAssets": 900000, "closingLiabilities": 250000, "livingExpenses": 120000, "knownIncome": 260000 }, "reference": "IRS Internal Revenue Manual 9.5.9 (net worth method of proof); ACFE Fraud Examiners Manual, Financial Transactions — indirect methods of proving income", "signature": { "input": { "openingAssets": { "type": "number", "describe": "Assets at the start of the period (at cost)", "min": 0 }, "openingLiabilities": { "type": "number", "describe": "Liabilities at the start", "min": 0 }, "closingAssets": { "type": "number", "describe": "Assets at the end (at cost)", "min": 0 }, "closingLiabilities": { "type": "number", "describe": "Liabilities at the end", "min": 0 }, "livingExpenses": { "type": "number", "describe": "Known personal expenditure in the period", "min": 0 }, "knownIncome": { "type": "number", "describe": "Income from known, legitimate sources", "min": 0 } }, "output": { "openingNetWorth": { "type": "number", "describe": "Opening assets − liabilities" }, "closingNetWorth": { "type": "number", "describe": "Closing assets − liabilities" }, "netWorthIncrease": { "type": "number", "describe": "Closing − opening net worth" }, "fundsApplied": { "type": "number", "describe": "Increase + living expenses" }, "unexplainedFunds": { "type": "number", "describe": "Funds applied − known income" } } } }, { "id": "duplicate_amounts", "name": "Number-duplication test", "answers": "Which payment amounts recur, how often, and how many rows do the repeats account for?", "example": { "amounts": [ 1250, 980.5, 1250, 4400, 75, 980.5, 1250, 310, 5000, 4400, 18.99, 6200 ] }, "reference": "Nigrini, M. J. (2011) Forensic Analytics, Wiley, ch. 8 (the number-duplication test); amounts compared to the cent", "signature": { "input": { "amounts": { "type": "number[]", "describe": "Payment amounts, in ledger order" } }, "output": { "rows": { "type": "number", "describe": "Amounts tested" }, "distinctAmounts": { "type": "number", "describe": "Different amounts" }, "duplicatedAmounts": { "type": "number", "describe": "Amounts that occur more than once" }, "duplicateRows": { "type": "number", "describe": "Rows carrying a duplicated amount" }, "mostFrequentAmount": { "type": "number", "describe": "The amount that recurs most (the smallest such, on a tie)" }, "mostFrequentCount": { "type": "number", "describe": "How often it occurs" } } } } ] }