Webclass 127: Debit-credit or credit-debit refresh fraud – it is more common than you think

Q1. Why should this webclass be called credit-debit refresh and not debit-credit refresh?

Q2. Why did Worldcom manipulate the age of receivables in order to make them look current?

Q3. Why might a supermarket head-office lie about the age of accounts receivable?

Q4. Why might Tier1 of a tiered distribution network lie about the age of accounts receivable?

Q5. According to the SEC, which type of fraud accounts for 60% of the cases reported by whistleblowers?

Q6. What could be another motivation for refreshing the age of accounts receivable?

Q7. How could extended payment delay for customers help sales?

Q8. Can the age of a customer transaction be refreshed through a singular journal entry?

Q9. If you see in the data that there are high volumes of partial payments of very low value, what could this indicate?

Q10. Why might Accounts Receivable create a vendor account for a customer that is not also a vendor?

Q11. If the clearing date of the newly posted customer transaction is the same as the clearing date of the previous customer transaction, is it likely that the department is trying to refresh the ageing of accounts receivable?

Q12. If partial payments are used to trigger the system to refresh the age of accounts receivable, should the clearing document number be used in the analysis to link to the newly posted transaction?

Q13. Which formula can help to easily see if there is an indication of accounts receivable refresh?