(By Joe Koletar) It is reported 90% of Americans have cell phones. So, it appears, convicts also have their share.

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reports in the May/June edition of Fraud Magazine on the topic: “Inmate mobile phone extortion. (page 6)” It seems a fair number of inmates pass the time (pardon the pun) by using cell phones to conduct fraud and extortion schemes. Although not mentioned in the article, there are other reported examples of inmates running their gangs from prison, and even arranging for potential witnesses and rival criminals to be “dealt with.”

The ACFE article cites but two examples – a drug dealer serving a thirty-year sentence running a jury failure-to-appear scam from prison and having innocent people wire money to him rather than face arrest, and another inmate sending photos of a badly-beaten fellow inmate to their family members to pay for the victim’s future “protection.”

The obvious question is how did these devices get into a prison, of all places? Were guards inattentive or compromised? Did pat-down searches fail to detect small devices? Were metal detectors in use, and were they sensitive enough to pick up small objects?

Smuggling contraband into prisons is as old as prisons themselves, but it used to be weapons, then weapons and drugs, and now cell phones have been added to the list. The obvious point of interdiction is the point of entry. That is the most effective control point, but it does not seem to be working. The article reports that Georgia, with one of largest prison populations, confiscated 13,500 cell phones in 2014 alone – about one for every five prisoners. Unfortunately, the ACFE article does not indicate the percentage confiscated at the point of entry, as opposed to those seized within the prisons.

The apparent issue is better controls at the point of entry: improved training and detection devices for guards; closer supervision; better analysis of usage incidents, and the like. The same is true for organizations of all types – limit exposure at the lowest possible level, before damage is done.

(Copyright 2015 – Joseph W. Koletar)

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

“Virtue is insufficient temptation.”

George Bernard Shaw

(By Joe Koletar) Thus starts an article, “Eco-waverers,” in the 2/28/15 edition of The Economist magazine (page 67.)

The article reports a study that indicates shoppers who take their own, eco-friendly, bag to the grocery store tend to buy more junk food than shoppers who use the plastic bags provided by the store.

Another study shows apartment-dwellers who respond to weekly advisories about limiting water usage reduced their water consumption by 6%. At the same time, their use of electricity rose by 5.6%. Hardly an off-set when one considers that production of electricity is more eco-unfriendly than the use of water.

A third study was conducted of persons performing community service. One group volunteered and the other group had been sentenced to such service. Both groups were offered the choice of a reward if they completed their service. Each group was offered the choice of a pair of designer jeans or a vacuum cleaner. The group that volunteered favored the designer jeans, while the group sentenced to such service tended toward the vacuum cleaner.

The article notes that psychologists refer to such behavior as “moral licensing.” Because I have done good, I am therefore allowed to reward myself. (I lost twenty pounds so I can buy that expensive car I always wanted?)

Let us now turn the focus of such actions to fraud. Does the fact that they have done good provide a rationale to some people to indulge themselves in others’ money? Shouldn’t I get some reward for being such a good person? Is this “Heaven Can Wait” behavior?

We explore such issues in The A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013).

Pardon the pun, but that funny-looking thing between your ears seems to have a “mind” of its own.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

(By Joe Koletar)For a small word, “sad” seems to sometimes act as a compass that points in many directions.

The issue of cheating in the Atlanta Public School system has been national news for some time, but in recent days, teachers, principals, and administrators have felt the scales of justice tilt to destroy their careers, reputations, and brand them criminals to be confined to jail cells.

One is left to wonder “Why” and “How?”

How could such educated, normal, and apparently decent people, find themselves in the clutches of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, a law originally designed to combat organized crime?

One finds it hard to believe that a person intent on crime for profit would bother to get a college degree and enter the low-paying teaching profession. Then, why?

Was it a casual suggestion that a few kids needed just a bit of “help?” Was it seen as just a one-time thing to fudge a few numbers? Was an already- established culture a norm for new arrivals? Was there pressure from the top with “suggestions” or actual threats that those who did not cooperate would be dealt with? Were there financial benefits to some, or even many?

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the story is the stance taken by some teachers and administrators when the handwriting on the wall could be clearly seen. Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter was bombarded with testimonials and pleas for mercy. He even postponed the sentencing date to allow those already convicted and their attorneys to negotiate plea deals, in exchange for a more lenient sentence, if they would publicly admit their guilt. Some chose not to do so.

This seems to make no sense. The evidence was presented over a five month trial. A jury had come back with guilty verdict after guilty verdict. Those accused were not career criminals but were now faced with sharing cells with violent felons, yet they refused to take the final step that would lessen their impending punishment.

Were they in denial? Did they believe it was all just a big misunderstanding? Had they come to believe a separate bad person who just happened to inhabit their bodies did these things, and they could not bring themselves to publicly apologize on behalf of the other “person?”

The quest for answers is worth beginning.

In the meantime, the compass needle of “sad” continues to swing: Sad teachers and administrators. Sad parents. Sad students who now realize they are not as well-prepared as they had been told they were. A sad city. A sad profession. Sad taxpayers.

“Sad” seems prone to make up its mind rather quickly.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

(By Vic Hartman) The Atlanta Public Schools (APS) cheating scandal will go down as the worst public schools governance failure in United States history. The cheating involved administrators and teachers systemically altering the test results of the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) given to Georgia students in grades first through eighth.

What Happened?

The story began to unravel in 2008 when the Atlanta-Journal Constitution initiated reporting. It culminated two weeks ago with the conviction of 11 defendants on charges of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and other offenses.

By The Numbers:

– 35 indicted
– 21 guilty pleas
– 11 convictions
– 1 acquittal
– 2 died under investigation
– 178 educators named as cheaters
– 44 schools involved
– 80 educators confessed to cheating
– 150 educators lost their jobs
– $580,000 in bonuses paid to the Superintendent
– 50 Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents assigned to investigate

How This Happened?

The tone from this corrupt bell tower rang loudly. The APS Superintendent set an unrealistically high bar for all to follow. Scores on the CRCT were expected to soar – “no exception, no excuses.” Principals were given three years to raise their scores or they would lose their jobs. At an annual convention in the Georgia Dome, the high achievers were recognized and praised for their astonishing achievements. The non-performers were relegated to the bleacher section. One teacher that did not participate in the cheating described that “…it felt like we all had leprosy.” All the while, the APS Superintendent won the 2009 National Superintendent of the Year.

The APS was achieving results never before seen in a school system. One school went from 1% of the students achieving the highest range on the CRCT in 2006 to 46% in 2007. The APS was achieving statistically improbable results and critics began watching. As various investigations began scrutinizing APS results, the APS administrators stuck by their guns.

The first line of defense was for APS to name its own Blue-Ribbon Commission to study the results, which not surprisingly minimized its findings. The Superintendent, an African-American who oversaw a school system comprised largely of African-American students and administrators, intimated that APS critics were racist. One of the resulting investigations concluded that the APS had a “culture of fear and a conspiracy of silence.” When one regional superintendent learned GBI agents had started interviews, she tried another tactic. She gathered a group of principals together and instructed everyone in attendance to prepare a memo telling investigators to “go to hell.” Each principal was then instructed to share this memo with their colleagues.

Why This Happened?

Using concepts the authors adeptly described in The A.B.C.’s of Behavioral Forensics (Willey, 2013), the teachers were the bad “apple (how ironic);” the principals were the bad “bushel;” and the regional superintendents were the bad “crop.”

This corruption undoubtedly started out as most do. Good people brought to a noble profession to do good things. But how do we go from good people to convicted teachers and administrators facing significant prison time?

The answers to these questions are as difficult as they are varied. Although greed is often thought of as the answer to many corruption and fraud offenders, that answer usually doesn’t capture the real motivation. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. Each participant probably acted under a somewhat different motivation that was emotionally based.

Take the Superintendent for an example. She did receive in excess of $580,000 in bonuses during her tenure. Were bonuses her primary motivation? What about pride? What role did her perceived accomplishments leading up to her winning the 2009 National Superintendent of the Year award play?

How about the mid-level management? What kind of tone were they setting and following? They were instructed to achieve at all costs. What role did pride and shame in the work force play?

How about the teachers? Several teachers were single-parent mothers with teaching being the only way to make a living. How much of a real choice did they have when their principals invited them to erasure parties where CRTC answers were changed from wrong to right?

How about the cover up? How ironic is it that the teachers are the ones cheating. Did the potential for monumental embarrassment drive management to obstruct investigators?

Can This Type of Fraud Be Prevented?

There are two types of controls that may help reduce this risk of cheating in the future: hard controls and soft controls.

The APS has already adopted some hard controls. Physical controls are being placed over the exams so they are not opened prior to testing. Further, the exams and scores sheets are tracked through the system to minimize changes to answers. There is an anonymous hotline so that anyone can report cheating. Incentive pay has been stopped and is under review. Over 60% of the principals have been replaced. The shortcoming with hard controls is that they are only as effective as the people that implement them.

Soft controls aim to create a culture of compliance. All participants are motivated to do the right things for the right reasons. The tone does start at the top and it rings and modulates with the governing body. There also needs to be a perception of detection. An atmosphere must be created so that no one wants to do wrong because they know they are surrounded by well-intentioned educators that will report them. For soft controls to work, they must be intentionally implemented and monitored. These controls should also be tested by an independent party.

Every parent in Atlanta is pulling for the new Superintendent.

The Impact of This Fraud

A generation of students was harmed by inflated test scores that masked true achievements by hiding them under unearned “achievements” through fraudulent test results. Students requiring and deserving remedial assistance were deprived of honest assessment of their academic abilities and the resources for remedial assistance.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

(By Joe Koletar) The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is a term used for the Chinese army, air force and navy. Collectively, it is the largest military force on earth, with capabilities ranging from a foot soldier to nuclear weapons. Soldiers are required to swear allegiance to it, rather than to the people or the country. It has been a major player in Chinese politics and also the Chinese economy. It “owns” scores, if not hundreds, of businesses and its dealings have been somewhat suspect over the years.

Xi Jinping, the new President, seems to be taking actions to deal with that, although in China nothing is always as it seems. Some speculate it is to eliminate political rivals, settle old scores, attempt genuine reform, or mold a more pleasing face of a nation-state for world consumption.

The article cited below reports that one target of this “reform” movement is General Xu Caihou. The article cites Chinese press reports (often suspect) that a raid on the General’s mansion required at least ten trucks to haul away the jade, gold and cash stored therein. Being a Chinese General is, evidently, a good thing, if you do not let ethics get in the way. (The article reports that fifteen other Generals are under investigation or awaiting trial: Hardly one or two “bad apples.”).

None of this is new, or peculiar to China. Tacticus, in his “Annals Of Imperial Rome,” noted many times that Emperors often took steps to curry favor with the Roman Legions, lest they be overthrown. The brilliance of the “Founding Fathers” in the United States was to recognize this all-too-human tendency and try to build in safeguards to prevent it. The Civil War cannot be cited as a failed attempt at military control. The Confederacy had no desire to control the Government of the United States. It wanted to break away and form its own government thus, technically, it was an “insurrection,” and not a “civil war.”

In current terms, we often see reports of well-intentioned disaster aid to poor countries being stolen by those in power, leaving the people to suffer. The rich get richer; the poor be damned. It can also extend to “major” countries, and one not need look too closely for current examples.

From the perspective of The A.B.C.’s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013), this is a recurring theme in human events. The propensity of some to steal, made all the more onerous by doing so ostensibly in the name of a “good” cause.

We welcome your comments. Perhaps you have more concrete, recent, or even personal data. We might all benefit from sharing it.

“Rank And Vile: Xi Jinping Flexes His Muscle Against Army Corruption,” The Economist magazine, 2/14/15, page 39.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

(By Joe Koletar) Fox News reported on 3/11/15 that the Social Security Administration (SSA) here in the United States has 6.5 million files in its active database for people who are at least 111 years old.

Obviously, 99.999% of these people have been dead for years, if not decades. But, a soil so rich is ideal territory for weeds. Fox reports numerous instances of relatives continuing to receive benefits intended for the deceased and forging their signatures. Others use these “dead” Social Numbers to get tax rebates and various benefits. Some illegal immigrants simply “become” the dead person.

To use a technical term, it’s a mess.

Fraud can be a crime of commission or omission. This is not meant to imply ill-intent on the part of organizational leadership. A classic case of fraud by omission is to sell a car and not inform the buyer of prior damage. However, do organization leaders have an affirmative responsibility to clear the ground before too many weeds take root?

In the Federal Government, there is often a requirement that one avoid conflicts of interest or actions that would create the appearance of a conflict of interest. A somewhat more demanding standard.

In the A.B.C.’s of Behavioral Forensics, we explore the psychological motivations that tend to produce fraudulent behavior. Should we also consider the motivations that produce inattentive behavior, thus increasing the likelihood of fraud? The possibilities seem boundless:

• It’s just the way things are.
• The problem has been around forever, long before I got here.
• Not enough resources.
• Technology issues get in the way.
• More important issues to deal with. We’ll get to it someday.

All good things to remember when your neighbor’s weeds begin to take over your lawn, but it begs the question. Who is your “neighbor,” and where does your “backyard” begin?

All fair questions. In this case your “neighbor” is the SSA, and your “backyard” is your tax bill. Someone has to pay for all this inattention. That would be us. Is it too much to ask that large organizations, public or private, tend to some basic housekeeping? (Such matters are also common in the private sector.) When the occasional revelation, such as SSA, sees the light of day, raise hell! Get in touch with elected representatives or corporate Boards. Demand action.

It’s only your money that is at risk.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

The posts in this blog make frequent mention of A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics. Below, we learn more about this prize-winning book.
BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF
“A.B.C.’s of Behavioral Forensics: Applying Psychology to Financial Fraud Prevention and Detection” by Sridhar Ramamoorti, Daven Morrison, Joseph Koletar, and Kelly Pope (2013, John Wiley & Sons)

How widespread is the fraud: Is it the apple, the bushel, or the crop? We often ask ourselves this question when we hear about the staggering amounts of fraud committed in this country. We also wonder why “good people do bad things.” By “bringing Freud to fraud,” this book emphasizes that fraud is a human act frequently motivated by an individual’s emotions and cognitive state (including associated group behavioral dynamics).
A rogue executive (a bad apple) seems quite capable of recruiting accomplices and perpetrate collusive fraud—hence the notion of bad bushels, as well as pervasive, toxic cultures spawning rampant fraud, producing bad crop scenarios.
For years, academic scholars have attempted to study and understand these behaviors. But the focus has been on the “how” rather than the “why” of fraud, with greed typically proffered as the primary rationale. The book uses behavioral science concepts such as “violation of trust,” to describe and explain fraud. Indeed, the psychology of fraud, or more broadly, “behavioral forensics,” is about learning to get into the fraudster’s mind, to “think like a crook to catch a crook”! Emotional manipulation, the big and small lies, the conscious and unconscious mind and their urgings, psychological defenses, human, trust-based relationships—all play a role. This non-technical book also looks at the psychology of the victims using real world case studies.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

(By Joe Koletar)  It’s not hard to find the fraud of the day or week in any newspaper or media report.

Our reaction is usually, “How could they do that?” But because these matters are so frequent, we now seem to have adopted a “Here it goes again” mentality. It seems “normal.”

Lest we become too comfortable and smug in our own skins, let’s step back a moment and look in the mirror. Do we “break the law?” Of course not. We are nice people who play by the rules.

Do we?

If you drive one mile over the speed limit, you have broken the law. Trust me, I do it every day, and so do you. I am familiar with the rationales (I use them also):

• It wasn’t much. I was in a hurry.
• Everybody else was doing it.
• Some people were going a lot faster.
• The cops don’t care.
• I wasn’t paying attention.

Let us be realistic. Driving one mile over the speed limit does not turn you into a homicidal maniac a week later. But some people, in their own way, do continue down the road (!) to even greater law-breaking.

There’s an old saying in the fraud prevention, detection, and investigation business: “Did you ever hear of anybody stealing $1M and working their way down?”

It always starts small, but most people stop before it becomes a huge issue, whether it be driving or stealing.

Why do some people not stop? That is the purpose of our work – our “quest,” if you will. What are the psychological mechanisms that cause some people to never touch the brakes?

Are they insane? Hardly not – most are quite rational in most ways and adept at normal social relationships. They look like, and indeed are, us, for all intents and purposes. Charlie and Sue – the soccer Moms and Dads. Our friends, our neighbors, perhaps even our relatives (By the way, those who sexually abuse children operate in much the same way. The dirty old man in the raincoat near the schoolyard is the exception, not the rule. Most abusers look very normal, even trusted.).

In thinking about fraud issues, both everyday people and “experts” trot out the same old diagnosis – “greed.” We disagree. “Greed” is too broad and murky an answer. Why do two people, alike in almost every way, follow such different paths? It could be Judy, who stole several thousand dollars, or Bernie Madoff, who stole billions. Why do some people go one way, and other people go the other?

We have begun to answer that question in our book, The ABC’s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013). Read it. Tell us if you think we are on the right path. We think we are, and we are the only ones doing it at the moment. If you disagree, tell us, but tell us why. Maybe you see something we have missed. We would love to hear about it.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of ABCs of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.

Joe Koletar served in the FBI for twenty-five years as a Special Agent and Senior Executive. Following his retirement he was an Executive in the Forensic and Litigation Support practices of Deloitte & Touche LLP and Ernst & Young LLP in New York City. His clients included General Motors, IBM, Dell Computer, Merrill Lynch, and the New York State Banking Commission. His work also involved working closely with major U.S. law firms.

His areas of expertise are: internal investigations, compliance program assessments, crisis management planning, security surveys, and risk management. He holds a Doctorate of Public Administration from the University of Southren California. His docrtoral dissertation was on “Codes of Conduct in Complex Organizations: Assessing Organizational Implementation and Benefits.”

(By Joe Koletar) According to a Wall Street Journal article (“Treatment of Tipsters Is Focus of SEC, 2/26/15, C-1), the SEC has in recent months sent probing letters to a number of companies, asking for years of internal records pertaining to possible “backlash” against inside tipsters.

This is significant for at least two reasons:

• For over a decade the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) has reported tips are, by far, the single most effective means of discovering fraud.

• But tipsters seeking a financial reward for “blowing the whistle” often face a long and usually painful experience. Studies have shown social isolation, management retaliation if identified, alcohol and drug abuse, divorce, and even suicide.

The term “whistler blower” is now somewhat common in the post- Enron era, but the concept is actually quite old. The False Claims Act (FCA) was passed by Congress following the Civil War after Union troops complained of short shipments of shoddy goods. The hope then was to reduce the abuse by getting vendor employees to report it.

More recent legislation put protection of whistle blowers under the aegis of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA,) an agency founded to deal with industrial safety. As one might expect, OSHA’s performance in protecting whistle blowers has been subject to criticism.

The article advises the SEC suspects that some companies have strict restrictions as to what employees may report, to whom they may report it, and what financial benefit, if any, they may receive. This would be akin to removing the teeth from the tiger.

Of note, the article also cites the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, which created the SEC’s current whistle blower program. The bill was passed in 2010, well over one hundred years after the FCA. Such, apparently, is progress in such matters.

The situation, however, is not all bleak. The SEC fielded 3,620 complaints of possible financial misdeeds in the 2014 Fiscal Year, a 21% increase from 2012. States are also beginning to follow the Federal lead, with legislation of their own. Both are positive trends in the direction of spotlighting those misdeeds.

Whistle blower groups such as the Governmental Accountability Project express concerns that companies still may be using increasingly-inventive measures to constrain those who might talk. Some members of Congress joined in on the issue, at least for the time being. Some companies have fought back, arguing they have modified procedures to facilitate employee reporting.

The situation seems to be getting better, but the jury is still out in the long term.

In the meantime, what is the average citizen to do? A suggestion may be in order:

Look in the mirror and ask yourself a simple question –“Why have you (we) tolerated this so long? Isn’t one hundred years enough?”

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.