Trained fraud analysts and investigators
Staff are trained to analyse and investigate fraud.
- Staff employed in compliance, investigations and fraud control hold the minimum required qualifications.
Purpose of this countermeasure
Failing to train and support staff to analyse and investigate different types and complexities of fraud can lead to less effective investigations.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, the prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence relevant to the guilt of the person charged. Furthermore, the offence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This type of countermeasure is supported by:
- Governance, accountability and oversight
- Collaboration with strategic partners
- Legislation and Policy
- Procedural instructions or guidance
- Managerial, independent or expert oversight
- Decision-making powers are clearly defined
- A specific form, process or system must be used
- Quality assurance checks
- Activity reporting
- Internal or external audits or reviews
- Coordinated disruption activity
How do I know if my countermeasures are effective?
You can apply the following methods to measure the effectiveness of these types of countermeasures:
- Analyse HR data on training /qualifications for fraud investigators (this information is also reported to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for their annual ‘Fraud against the Commonwealth’ census). Benchmark results against:
- Review any supplementary training/qualifications provided to fraud analysts and investigators.
- Consult analysts and investigators. Confirm that the training/qualifications are adequate for the type of fraud threats involved.
- Survey analysts and investigators to gauge their level of confidence to investigate specific types of fraud.
- Commonwealth agencies can review the APSC Census results for teams involved in analysing and investigation fraud. Do staff feel they receive adequate training and support?