Level
Level 7
Credits
120
Guided Learning
240
Total Qualification Time
1200
Qualification overview
A simple summary of who this qualification is for and what learners can expect.
About this qualification
The Level 7 Diploma in Forensic Accounting & Fraud Investigation is an IQ Awards qualification at Level 7. It supports learners in developing knowledge, practical skills and professional behaviours in accounting & finance.
The qualification is structured for clear delivery, assessment and quality assurance through approved centres.
Who is it for?
- Experienced practitioners, supervisors, managers and graduates seeking advanced professional development.
- Learners who want to develop strategic, analytical and leadership skills.
- Professionals preparing for senior roles or postgraduate progression.
Entry and assessment guidance
Centres should check learner suitability before registration.
Entry requirements
- Entry is at the discretion of the approved centre.
- Learners will normally hold a relevant qualification at the previous level or have substantial professional experience.
- Learners should be able to work independently, evaluate evidence and apply strategic thinking.
- Centres should confirm that learners have sufficient English language ability for advanced study.
Assessment approach
Assessment may include assignments, projects, practical evidence, workplace evidence, portfolios, presentations or other centre-devised assessment methods approved under IQ Awards quality assurance.
Language requirements
Centres should ensure learners have sufficient language competency to complete learning and assessment.
Qualification units
Jump to any unit below. Each unit opens with its own learning outcomes, criteria and content where available.
Unit 1 of 8
Forensic Accounting Frameworks and Engagement Planning
FAFI701
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in design of a defensible investigation plan to produce a forensic engagement and investigation plan.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about engagement risk, independence and plan quality and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning.
- 3.1 Formulate a forensic engagement and investigation plan that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in forensic accounting frameworks and engagement planning. It focuses on forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities, scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning, design of a defensible investigation plan, engagement risk, independence and plan quality. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a forensic engagement and investigation plan, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities.
- Analysis and context: scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning.
- Applied methods: design of a defensible investigation plan.
- Evaluation and improvement: engagement risk, independence and plan quality.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Forensic Accounting Frameworks and Engagement Planning - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a forensic engagement and investigation plan. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to engagement risk, independence and plan quality. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 2 of 8
Fraud Risk, Typologies and Red-Flag Analysis
FAFI702
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in development of a fraud-risk and red-flag analysis to produce a fraud-risk assessment and red-flag report.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about false positives, bias and prevention priorities and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators.
- 3.1 Formulate a fraud-risk assessment and red-flag report that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in fraud risk, typologies and red-flag analysis. It focuses on fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies, fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators, development of a fraud-risk and red-flag analysis, false positives, bias and prevention priorities. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a fraud-risk assessment and red-flag report, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies.
- Analysis and context: fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators.
- Applied methods: development of a fraud-risk and red-flag analysis.
- Evaluation and improvement: false positives, bias and prevention priorities.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Fraud Risk, Typologies and Red-Flag Analysis - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a fraud-risk assessment and red-flag report. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to false positives, bias and prevention priorities. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 3 of 8
Digital Evidence, Data Analytics and E-Discovery
FAFI703
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in design and execution of a forensic analytics plan to produce a forensic data-analysis file and evidence report.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about analytical limitations, reproducibility and evidential weight and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery.
- 3.1 Formulate a forensic data-analysis file and evidence report that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in digital evidence, data analytics and e-discovery. It focuses on digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody, data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery, design and execution of a forensic analytics plan, analytical limitations, reproducibility and evidential weight. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a forensic data-analysis file and evidence report, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody.
- Analysis and context: data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery.
- Applied methods: design and execution of a forensic analytics plan.
- Evaluation and improvement: analytical limitations, reproducibility and evidential weight.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Digital Evidence, Data Analytics and E-Discovery - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a forensic data-analysis file and evidence report. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to analytical limitations, reproducibility and evidential weight. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Practical evidence: include direct observation or realistic simulation, an assessor observation record, the learner's working documents and a reflective account. Unsafe, unauthorised or unsupervised activity must not be assessed.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 4 of 8
Investigative Interviewing and Evidence Management
FAFI704
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on interview planning, questioning and memory considerations.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in conduct of a lawful simulated investigative interview to produce a recorded simulated interview and evidence-management portfolio.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about evidence reliability, ethics and investigative next steps and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in interview planning, questioning and memory considerations.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting interview planning, questioning and memory considerations.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records.
- 3.1 Formulate a recorded simulated interview and evidence-management portfolio that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in investigative interviewing and evidence management. It focuses on interview planning, questioning and memory considerations, documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records, conduct of a lawful simulated investigative interview, evidence reliability, ethics and investigative next steps. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a recorded simulated interview and evidence-management portfolio, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: interview planning, questioning and memory considerations.
- Analysis and context: documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records.
- Applied methods: conduct of a lawful simulated investigative interview.
- Evaluation and improvement: evidence reliability, ethics and investigative next steps.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Investigative Interviewing and Evidence Management - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to interview planning, questioning and memory considerations and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to documentary evidence, exhibits and continuity records. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a recorded simulated interview and evidence-management portfolio. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to evidence reliability, ethics and investigative next steps. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Practical evidence: include direct observation or realistic simulation, an assessor observation record, the learner's working documents and a reflective account. Unsafe, unauthorised or unsupervised activity must not be assessed.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 5 of 8
Financial Crime, Anti-Money Laundering, Bribery and Corruption
FAFI705
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in analysis of a complex financial-crime scenario to produce a financial-crime investigation and controls report.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about control effectiveness and regulatory response and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation.
- 3.1 Formulate a financial-crime investigation and controls report that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in financial crime, anti-money laundering, bribery and corruption. It focuses on financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks, customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation, analysis of a complex financial-crime scenario, control effectiveness and regulatory response. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a financial-crime investigation and controls report, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks.
- Analysis and context: customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation.
- Applied methods: analysis of a complex financial-crime scenario.
- Evaluation and improvement: control effectiveness and regulatory response.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Financial Crime, Anti-Money Laundering, Bribery and Corruption - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to financial-crime risks, predicate offences and control frameworks and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to customer risk, transactions, beneficial ownership and escalation. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a financial-crime investigation and controls report. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to control effectiveness and regulatory response. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 6 of 8
Loss Quantification, Asset Tracing and Recovery
FAFI706
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in quantification and tracing analysis using evidence to produce a loss-quantification and asset-tracing report.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about uncertainty, recoverability and alternative assumptions and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques.
- 3.1 Formulate a loss-quantification and asset-tracing report that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in loss quantification, asset tracing and recovery. It focuses on loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods, fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques, quantification and tracing analysis using evidence, uncertainty, recoverability and alternative assumptions. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce a loss-quantification and asset-tracing report, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods.
- Analysis and context: fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques.
- Applied methods: quantification and tracing analysis using evidence.
- Evaluation and improvement: uncertainty, recoverability and alternative assumptions.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Loss Quantification, Asset Tracing and Recovery - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to loss theories, financial reconstruction and damages methods and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to fund flows, ownership structures and asset-tracing techniques. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce a loss-quantification and asset-tracing report. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to uncertainty, recoverability and alternative assumptions. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 7 of 8
Expert Reports, Litigation Support and Professional Ethics
FAFI707
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in preparation and defence of an expert-style report to produce an expert-style report and simulated oral defence.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about objectivity, limitations and ethical threats and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination.
- 3.1 Formulate an expert-style report and simulated oral defence that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in expert reports, litigation support and professional ethics. It focuses on expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes, report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination, preparation and defence of an expert-style report, objectivity, limitations and ethical threats. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce an expert-style report and simulated oral defence, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes.
- Analysis and context: report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination.
- Applied methods: preparation and defence of an expert-style report.
- Evaluation and improvement: objectivity, limitations and ethical threats.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Expert Reports, Litigation Support and Professional Ethics - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to expert duties, admissibility concepts and litigation processes and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to report structure, exhibits, opinion boundaries and cross-examination. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce an expert-style report and simulated oral defence. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to objectivity, limitations and ethical threats. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Practical evidence: include direct observation or realistic simulation, an assessor observation record, the learner's working documents and a reflective account. Unsafe, unauthorised or unsupervised activity must not be assessed.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Unit 8 of 8
Independent Forensic Investigation Project
FAFI708
Learning outcomes
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on research problem, methodology and investigation governance.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning collection and critical analysis of financial evidence in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in production of an original forensic investigation to produce an independent forensic investigation report and professional presentation.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about findings, limitations, ethics and contribution to practice and justify improvements.
Assessment criteria
- 1.1 Critically evaluate advanced theories, contested perspectives and system interdependencies involved in research problem, methodology and investigation governance.
- 1.2 Interrogate the professional, ethical, legal, safety and stakeholder tensions affecting research problem, methodology and investigation governance.
- 2.1 Synthesise complex, incomplete and potentially conflicting evidence for collection and critical analysis of financial evidence.
- 2.2 Exercise autonomous and transparent judgement when evaluating approaches to collection and critical analysis of financial evidence.
- 3.1 Formulate an independent forensic investigation report and professional presentation that meets the stated scenario and stakeholder requirements.
- 3.2 Integrate original insight, advanced methods, governance controls and implementation requirements.
- 4.1 Critically defend the completed work using strategic, evidential and risk-based criteria.
- 4.2 Develop authoritative recommendations that address uncertainty, trade-offs, limitations and implications for practice.
Unit aim
This unit develops the learner's knowledge and applied capability in independent forensic investigation project. It focuses on research problem, methodology and investigation governance, collection and critical analysis of financial evidence, production of an original forensic investigation, findings, limitations, ethics and contribution to practice. Learners will use appropriate evidence and methods to produce an independent forensic investigation report and professional presentation, then evaluate its quality, safety, ethics and effectiveness.
Indicative content
- Core principles: research problem, methodology and investigation governance.
- Analysis and context: collection and critical analysis of financial evidence.
- Applied methods: production of an original forensic investigation.
- Evaluation and improvement: findings, limitations, ethics and contribution to practice.
- Professional themes: stakeholder needs; legal and ethical responsibilities; equality and accessibility; health, safety and risk; data quality and confidentiality; communication and record keeping; quality assurance; sustainability; reflective practice.
Assignment brief
- Assignment title: Independent Forensic Investigation Project - Applied Vocational Assignment
- Scenario: You are acting as a forensic accounting and fraud-investigation professional for a realistic organisation or service. A manager has asked you to investigate a defined problem relating to research problem, methodology and investigation governance and provide a defensible professional response.
- Task 1 - Context and analysis (AC 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2): Critically evaluate and synthesise the key principles, responsibilities and supplied case evidence relating to collection and critical analysis of financial evidence. Identify material risks, needs, causes or decision factors and support the response with credible sources appropriate to Level 7.
- Task 2 - Applied output (AC 3.1, 3.2): Produce an independent forensic investigation report and professional presentation. Show the method, assumptions, calculations or procedures used; include appropriate controls, records and stakeholder communication.
- Task 3 - Evaluation (AC 4.1, 4.2): Evaluate the completed output in relation to findings, limitations, ethics and contribution to practice. Discuss limitations, ethical and safety implications, and make prioritised, evidence-based recommendations.
- Evidence requirements: one coherent 4,000 to 5,000-word equivalent submission, excluding appendices, together with the named applied output and supporting evidence. Use an accepted referencing style, map evidence clearly to every assessment criterion, identify all external sources and include an authenticity declaration.
- Assessment decision: Pass is awarded only when every criterion is met with valid, authentic, current and sufficient evidence. Unmet criteria must be referred for targeted reassessment in line with IQA policy.
Progression routes
Typical routes after completing this qualification.
Progression
Progression to further postgraduate study, specialist professional practice or strategic leadership.
Learning outcomes summary
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on forensic engagement types, standards and professional responsibilities.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning scope, hypotheses, materiality and evidence planning in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in design of a defensible investigation plan to produce a forensic engagement and investigation plan.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about engagement risk, independence and plan quality and justify improvements.
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on fraud theories, occupational fraud and emerging typologies.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning fraud-risk assessment, control failure and behavioural indicators in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.
- LO3: Exercise original and autonomous judgement in development of a fraud-risk and red-flag analysis to produce a fraud-risk assessment and red-flag report.
- LO4: Critically defend conclusions about false positives, bias and prevention priorities and justify improvements.
- LO1: Critically evaluate contemporary perspectives on digital evidence principles, provenance and chain of custody.
- LO2: Synthesise complex and incomplete evidence concerning data acquisition, preparation, anomaly tests and e-discovery in relevant vocational or organisational contexts.