The case involved colluding between the AOL executives and Purchase Pro, Inc. in which they overstated the revenue generated from the software licenses. This made the investors believe that Purchase Pro, Inc. had achieved its sales objectives. To be able to make such revenue claims, the parties had to use computers to overstate the values. Accounting records had to be stored in computers and making such manipulation involved the use of accounting software. Additionally, the cases involved charges of wired fraud, which was done through electronic trading, which means computers were used.
One certified professional that could have been used for this case would have been a forensic accountant. The forensic accountant could have been helpful since the case involved manipulation of financial data. The skills of the forensic accountant would have been essential in analyzing the financial transactions. Further, the forensic accountant would have provided clear facts regarding how the crime was committed without being biased. This would provide substantial evidence to prosecute the defendants. The forensic accounting skills are critical in exposing fake accounting practices (DiGabriele, 2008).
A computer forensic analyst would also be a valuable certified professional to this case. The computer forensic analyst would use their information technology skills to gather evidence, which could be used to convict the perpetrators of the crime in a court of law. Additionally, they would collect information such as means of communication between the executives of American Online and Purchase Pro Inc. They would analyze the PDAs, laptops, and mobile devices to establish incriminating evidence. Furthermore, they would be able to recover files that may have been erased and could be helpful in developing a conviction for the perpetrators.
An essential computer skill would be deductive analysis. This would be helpful in assessing the abnormal financial patterns. Additionally, critical thinking skills would be essential in order to develop clear facts that are unbiased. Separating facts from opinions is essential if the forensic expert is to give testimony in court. Further, evidence preservation is crucial. Computer evidence is easily destroyed or can easily be tampered with, thus proper procedures need to be followed in preserving the evidence. According to the Ec-Council (2009), the forensic analyst needs to ensure no malware is introduced to the computer being investigated. A chain of custody needs to be developed and used to ensure that the evidence is not tampered. Furthermore, having a chain of custody will provide a form of accountability in case the evidence is tampered.
Common software tools that may be used include Encase, FTK, and ProDiscover. These tools are effective in forensic data acquisition and analysis (Nelson, Phillips, and Steuart, 2010). Acquisition involves copying the original drive used in the computer under investigation. This procedure is significant as it preserves the original drive and prevents it from being damaged to protect the digital evidence.
The first thing to do when documenting a scene is to ensure that any evidence obtained needs to be recorded no matter how small. Evidence tags need to be used to mark the evidence categorically (Easttom and Taylor, 2011). The computer forensic analyst should also document the crime scene. The photographs will capture the computer disks, hand written documents and other system components (Ec-council, 2009). Thirdly, a sketch of the crime scene needs to be done and needs to include all the details of the crime scene.
Maintaining such a chain of custody in documentation would definitely have affected the outcome of the case. The executives that were acquitted would have been prosecuted based on the clear evidence that would have been presented. It seems lack of substantial evidence forced the lawyers to settle to out of court and charges were dropped.
One case that was dismissed due to inaccurate or tampering of digital evidence was Kucala Enterprises Ltd vs. Auto Wax Co., Inc. The case involved Kucala filing a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment against Auto wax based on the allegations Auto Wax had made against Kucala computer (Barkett, 2009). Upon investigations, it was established that Kucala had installed Evidence Eliminator software, which is believed to erase any digital evidence from a computer (Barkett, 2009). The court dismissed the case because by using Evidence Eliminator, Kucala had lost data relevant to the case. This case indicates that as much as technology can be used to provide evidence, it can also be used to destroy evidence, which implies procedures in forensic analysis must be followed strictly.
In Taylor vs. Texas, the expert had used contaminated hard drive from a previous case to make a mirror image of the plaintiff’s drive. Additionally, the expert accidentally had formatted the drive while preparing the destination drive. The good thing about this case was that the court did not use any digital evidence to make a ruling. Were it not for other testimonies from other witnesses, the case would have been dismissed. This means that cases that entirely depend on digital evidence may suffer significant setback if digital evidence is tampered.
References
Barkett, J. M. (2009). The ethics of e-Discovery. Chicago, Ill: First Chair Press.
DiGabriele, J. A. (2008). An Empirical Investigation of the Relevant Skills of Forensic
Accountants. Journal of Education for Business, 83(6), 331-338.
Easttom, C., & Taylor, J. (2011). Computer crime, investigation, and the law. Boston, Mass:
Ec-Council (2009). Investigation Procedures and Response, Book 1. New York: Cengage
Learning.
Nelson, B., Phillips, A. & Steuart, C. (2010). Guide to Computer Forensics and
Investigations. Boston: Cengage Learning.
