SEC592 Week 7 Discussion (dq1+dq2) Latest 2019 January Question # 00598730 Subject: Education Due on: 03/02/2019 Posted On: 03/02/2019 04:32 AM Tutorials: 1 Rating: 4.8/5

SEC592 IT
Governance

Week 7
Discussion

DQ1 FORENSIC CASES, TOOLS AND SERVICES

Standard Question

Two postings are required.

In addition to the Labs (Lab 1 is awesome), we shall explore
all of these topics:

Forensic Cases from the Real World

Forensic Tools

Forensic Services

Select any topic and tell us two things: What did you find and how can we use it.

DQ2 EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT

Two postings are required in this topic. Check back after your postings and see if
there are any questions for you to answer.
There are two different topics here: Standard and Alternative.

Standard Discussion Question

If several employees in your organization were suspected of
fraud, how would you handle their computer equipment? Assume they are in several different
departments.

What steps would you take to preserve evidence?

Alternative From the Real World – This is actually a Lab

Background:

There are several files to view in “Files” > “Week
7”, in a specific order.

They are as follows:

(1) verisign 1.jpg

(2) verisign 2.jpg

(3) verisign 3.jpg

(4) VeriSign COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION.pdf

(5) VRSN-ExecFraudBlog.pdf

Files 1, 2 and 3 show you the share price of VeriSign’s
stock going from about $10, up to $250, down to $7 and then after many years,
up to about $160.

File 4 is the actual COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS against VeriSign. Read the
“Introduction” section. Here
is a sample. “As part of their
effort to boost the price of VeriSign stock, defendants misrepresented
VeriSign’s true prospects in an effort to conceal VeriSign’s improper acts
until they were able to sell at least $26 million worth of their own VeriSign
stock and use VeriSign’s shares to acquire companies in stock-for-stock
transactions….”

File 4 is a summary of the Verisign Fraud – Class Action
Lawsuit. Read the “Issues”
section, Here is a sample. “… the
executives were not held personally responsible for their
deception.”.

In File 4, read the “Scienter” section. Here is a sample: ” The plaintiffs’
complaints allege that CTO Ethan Cohen, COO Donohoe, and CEO David Cohen had
created the technology to over bill customers, used undocumented invoices to
eliminate customer’s ability to verify the accuracy, and even bragged about
their billing scheme to other managers about the increased billing they’d mastermind.” Note: When pleading scienter, parties “must
allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent.”

Question: Can today’s law and technology, really stop this
type of a fraud from happening again? How, or
why not?