Fraud Awareness Prevention-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Fraud Awareness Prevention. Answer: Fraud description The fraud under consideration, in this case, is cyber-crime that was committed between 8.00 AM to 10.00 PM on 21st January 2018 at London city in Canada. This fraud act was allegedly committed by John Black Hat. It was reported by one of the companies (AGH Company) in the city that the alleged fraudster hacked into companys bank account and transferred a huge amount of money. From the actions of John Black Hat, the police noted three main characteristics of this fraudster. The first character associated with John was deprivation. When police confiscated his laptops from his warehouse, he denied any ownership until the system recognized his as the most wanted cyber-attacker (Bohm, 2013). Second, he is deceptive and lastly risk taker. Despite counter cyber-cyber-crime set by Canadian legal system, John risked being arrested. This fraud is an offense punishable by law. In this case, the fraud was perpetuated to be a deliberate act that John Black Hat committed knowing the legal status of his act. Under Canadian Criminal Code section 342, the fraud was categorized under Canadian cyber-crime laws. This law was applied to determine whether John was liable or not. The company suffered damages for financial loss. Thus, the case was perpetuated on the basis of section 342. According to Canadian criminal code, hacking is a form of cyber-crime that result in a criminal offense punishable by law. This fraud falls under section 342 of the criminal code that deals with theft, forgery of credit cards and authorized use of a computer (Allen, 2011). Thus, this fraud was prosecuted as a criminal offense. The body that propelled this case was given mandate by Canadian computer crime laws. In this case, the plaintiffs would be AGH Company while the defendant will be John Black Hat. During court proceedings, this case was presented as AGH Company VS John Black Hat. Identification of fraudster The name of the alleged fraudster was John Black Hat. The company later realized that the hacker would not have managed to access the companys bank account with inside information. Thus, it was discovered that several individuals assisted John Black Hat to access this confidential information. According to police interrogation, the companys system administrator Mr. David Wright was found liable for leaking confidential data to John Black Hat. There were blueprints that were discovered by police that connect these two individuals (Allen, 2008). This was a supportive action since Mr. David Wright got a share from that fraud. Identification of victim This fraud exposed a lot of people and organization to risks. The immediate direct victim was the company. The company lost a lot of money which may result in the collapse of the operations if the money would not be recovered. Other victims, in this case, include investors. There were a lot of people who invested in the company and suffered financial loss. All the shareholders in the company also suffered damages. The company had borrowed a lot of money from the financial institution which may result in delays in loan repayment. This form of breach of contract will make the company lose external and external confidence. Discovery and Outcomes This fraud was discovered when the bank sent a memo notifying the company of huge withdrawal of money from the account. This information revealed that unknown individual transferred a huge amount of money to mysterious account was would not be traced. Upon receiving this memo, the company responded with little or no knowledge of the withdrawal. Records and bank balance indicated that the bank account has been accessed illegally (Alan, 2004). Police investigation revealed this as hacking or cyber-crime. Use techniques in ethical hacking unit, police managed to reveal the blueprint of the person who hacked the back and his place of action. John Black Hat was apprehended by police as he planned to damage evidence against him. From police investigation, it was clear that this fraud was committed by John and David deliberately with the intention of stealing money from the company. They were taken to court and charged under section 342 of the criminal code (Barnhorst, 2009). The ethical hacking unit managed to recover the transferred money from mysterious bank accounts. The report from criminal court also found John Black Hat guilty of other cyber-crime offenses that had not been discovered before. The court ordered full recovery of money lost through this kind of fraud (Siegel, 2014). AGH Company managed to recover full amount that had been confiscated. In the same, Mr. David Wright cooperated with the court and he confessed to having given information to John Black Hat. In his rule, Judge Peter Moore found John Hat guilty and was sent to jail for life. Mr. David Wright was also found guilty but he was sentenced to ten years in jail since he assisted in police investigations. References Alan, B. (2004). Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Allen, B.V. (2008). Police Powers: Law, Order, and Accountability. Pearson Education Canada. Allen, B.V. (2011). Criminal Investigation: Search of the Truth (2nd edition). Pearson Education Canada. Barnhorst, R. (2009). Criminal Law and the Canadian Criminal Code. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Higher Education. Bohm, R.M. (2013). Introduction to Criminal Justice, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Education. Siegel, L.J. (2014). Criminology: The Core, 5th edn. Wadsworth Publishing.