Free Practice Questions for ACFE CFE-Investigation Exam

The Fraud Examiners Manual defines double-negative questions as those containing two forms of negation in a single clause. They are confusing and “often suggest an answer opposite to the correct one.” The example given is almost identical to the question here:

“Didn’t you suspect that something wasn’t right?”.

Thus, Sylvia’s question is a double-negative question, which should be avoided.

“Internal sources will sometimes be the only resource for certain types of documents—such as… employee personnel files—unless the fraud examiner has the subject’s consent or a legal order”.

External searches may reveal addresses, assets, or competitor ownership, but personnel files require internal/non-public access.

Fraud examiners must not opine on guilt, innocence, intent, or disposition. Reports should focus on facts and expert conclusions within their field. The Manual stresses:

“The fraud examiner should refrain from expressing opinions as to the guilt or innocence of any person or entity. Such conclusions are reserved for the trier of fact” (Fraud Examiners Manual, Reporting section).

Options A, B, and D relate to accounting and internal control assessments, which fall within an accounting expert’s scope. Only C is improper because it speculates about the suspect’s character or intent, which is outside the CFE’s role.

The Fraud Examiners Manual notes that when witnesses become hostile or argumentative, the interviewer should generally remain calm and avoid reacting to hostility. Reacting, reasoning, or arguing often escalates the situation. Instead, the interviewer should maintain control and neutrality .

In admission-seeking interviews, one rationalization technique is to depersonalize the victim (e.g., shifting the perception so the harm was against a company, not individuals). The example in the question—“It isn’t like you took something from a friend or neighbor”—is exactly this technique.

Textual analytics is used to extract investigative insight from unstructured data—communications and documents that are not stored in standard database fields—such as emails, chats, memos, and other narrative text. CFE investigative guidance explains that textual analysis applies linguistic methods and statistical techniques to identify themes, anomalies, and linkages within large volumes of text. Its purpose is not to determine truthfulness or deception with certainty (Option A), because text analytics cannot reliably “detect lies” in a definitive way. Nor is its primary objective to guarantee discovery of a confession (Option B); admissions can appear, but that is not the defining function of the approach. Option C aligns more with flow-of-funds visualization or link/relationship charting for financial movements rather than analyzing language content. Instead, textual analysis is performed to categorize and structure text so patterns, sentiments, recurring topics, and relationships between people and events become visible—helping examiners prioritize leads, identify risk indicators, and focus investigative testing on communications most indicative of potential fraud.

During admission-seeking interviews, when suspects persist with denials or alibis, examiners are trained to diffuse them. Accepted techniques include:

Discussing testimony of witnesses,

Displaying physical evidence, and

Downplaying the strength of evidence.

However, manuals caution that discussing a suspect’s prior deceptions is not an effective or recommended method to diffuse alibis. It risks confrontation and may damage rapport, reducing chances of confession.

Therefore, option C is the exception.

“Signs of stress do not always mean that a subject is lying… While lying and deception do cause stress, it is not necessarily true that all stress exhibited during an interview is caused by lying”.

The Prep guide confirms: “While lying and deception do indeed cause stress, it is not necessarily true that all stress exhibited during an interview is caused by lying”.

Therefore, Carlos should not automatically conclude deception from stress behaviors.

Phone records are classified as nonpublic records. The Fraud Examiners Manual explains that personal telephone and mobile records usually require consent, subpoena, or warrant to access. Public records, by contrast, include real property ownership and corporate filings. Therefore, B is correct.

Fraud examiners can obtain documentary evidence by consent, subpoena, or other legal means. While oral consent may sometimes be sufficient, bank records from financial institutions generally require written consent. Without written consent, the bank is not required to provide access. As stated in the manual:

“Accessing a subject’s bank records from financial institutions, for instance, generally requires written consent. If no consent is given… legal action might be required, most often a subpoena or other court order”.

Thus, although the suspect gave oral consent, Alex cannot access the bank records without written authorization or legal order.