This paper examines the U.S. v. AOL case that involved fraudulent preparation of documents to inflate or overstate revenue and receive huge bonuses in return. The discussion examines how computers could have been used to carry out the crime, examples of certified professionals that could have been used in the trial, and the type of computer forensic skills and procedures that could have been used. The other parts discuss the documentation procedures that could have been used to document evidence and cases that have failed for inaccurate or insufficient digital evidence.
U.S. v AOL:
AOL case was a lawsuit involving collusion between the executives from AOL and PurchasePro Inc. (PPRO) with the sole intention of overstating revenue. The 37% overstated revenue would make executives to believe that PurchasePro Inc. had achieved its sales forecasts, which would in turn contribute to inflation of the company's stock price. Due to their contributions, some of the executives involved in this illegal agreement and fraud would obtain large bonuses and the company's stocks. However, the jury in the case acquitted the three defendants in the much publicized five-year investigation into fraudulent accounting practices between AOL and PurchasePro. Notably, the case offers an example of criminal offenses conducted through the use of computers and necessitates the use of computer forensic tools and procedures in order to resolve.
The Use of a Computer to Commit the Crime:
As previously mentioned, U.S. v AOL is a lawsuit involving fraudulent initiatives by executives from AOL and PurchasePro Inc. To overstate revenue in order to eventually inflate the stock price of PurchasePro Inc. And obtain huge bonuses and stocks in return. Even though the jury in the case acquitted the three defendants, they committed a crime that involve the use of a computer. Actually, AOL accepted responsibility for its employee's misconduct and agreed with the government to pay a penalty in order to avoid prosecution for 2 years (Kolz, 2007). The agreement enabled the company to avoid being prosecuted for any other conduct associated with PPRO transactions including statements, accounting, omissions, and disclosures.
The case basically involved the use of computers to facilitate the performance of the crime in various ways. Some of these major ways computers could have been used or were used to carry out the offense include production and transmission of backdated, fraudulent contracts like statement of work and the creation and transmission of illegal documentation like sales invoice. Computers may have also been used to commit the offense through creating and transmitting fraudulent documentation indicated the inflated or overstated revenue and using it to show these illegal practices to executives, marketing, and press releases.
Certified Professionals that could have been used in the Case:
Since this offense may have involved the use of computers as previously shown, the lawsuit could have involved the use of certified professionals who could have played a crucial role in the determination of the case, especially for the prosecution's testimony. An example of a certified professional who could have been for this case is a Specified Agent, who is knowledgeable and enforces the law. The agent would know when a search warrant or subpoena would be required to prevent the questioning of the case or its loss in court. The significance of this professional is attributed to the fact that he/she will carefully examine evidence, conduct interviews, generate a timeline of events, and try to ensure that guilty people are charged and prosecuted. The second example of certified professionals who could be used in the case is a computer forensics examiner because of his/her knowledge in computer forensics examination, especially on tools used to conduct the examination ("Certification: GCFE," n.d.). The special agent would have influenced the prosecution's testimony by enhancing the credibility of witnesses through conducting interviews and preparing them in court. On the contrary, the computer forensics examiner would enhance the prosecution's testimony by identifying key evidence or artifacts in electronic devices and present them as forensics report in court.
Computer Forensic Skills, Tools and Procedures:
As an offense that involved the use of computers, the lawsuit would have necessitated the use of effective computers forensic skills, tools, and procedures to extract and preserve the data. The need for using appropriate and effective computer forensic skills, procedures or tools is because digital evidence is usually fragile and more vulnerable to loss. Actually, digital evidence can change with usage, be changed due to improper handling and storage, and be intentionally or maliciously altered or damaged ("Investigations Involving the Internet and Computer Networks," 2007). The use of such skills and procedures would help in expeditious retrieval and preservation of evidence.
Computer forensic tools that could have been used in the case are Guidance EnCase, E-fence Helix, AccessData FTK, and Write-blocker. In contrast, the case would have benefited from the use of computer forensic skills like digital data search and seizure, digital data acquisition, data carving and analysis, knowledge of the specific Operating Systems, chart carving and analysis, email caving, retrieval and analysis, Internet History extraction and analysis, and timeline analysis and report. Generally, a proper search and seizure of digital evidence could have played a crucial role in the case to demonstrate how both companies were guilty of the offense.
Documentation of Evidence:
The most crucial part of any forensic investigation is proper documentation because of its significance in the admissibility of evidence (Easttom & Taylor, 2011, p.236). Similar to other cases involving the use of digital evidence, this case requires careful documentation through effective procedures. There are two major procedures that could be used to document the evidence i.e. chain of custody documentation and computer forensics report. Chain of custody documentation is the chronological documentation that details the seizure, control, custody, transmit, and analysis of physical or digital evidence. The second procedure is the use of computer forensics report that shows the use of legalized and approved forensic procedures and tools. The report shows the exact times when the fraudulent documents were generated, altered, accessed, transmitted and/or deleted. These documentation procedures would have changed the outcome of the trial by providing strong evidence for conviction.
Examples of Cases:
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.