ACC 6070 Module 3 Written Assignment: Fraud and Computer Crime Example

Reviewed by Edgar Pennington, MBA Thomas Edison State University Updated October 2026

This ACC 6070 Module 3 example answers a written assignment on fraud and computer crime for Accounting and Information Systems Design and Implementation in TESU's Master of Science in Accounting. ACC-6070 studies threats to the AIS in this module, from employee fraud to attacks from outside. The paper analyzes a composite case at Passaic Precision Parts, a manufacturer in Paterson, New Jersey, where an accounts payable clerk paid $152,000 to three fictitious vendors over two years and, separately, an outsider impersonating the CFO by email persuaded staff to wire $86,000 to a new account. It applies the fraud triangle to the clerk, classifies both schemes and the techniques used and recommends controls that remove the opportunity each exploited.

CourseACC-6070 Accounting and Information Systems Design and Implementation
ModuleModule 3
Paper typeModule 3 written assignment: fraud and computer crime
LengthAbout 721 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolThomas Edison State University
ProgramMaster of Science in Accounting
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for ACC 6070 Module 3

1

Fake Vendors and a Spoofed Email: Fraud and Computer Crime at a Paterson Manufacturer

Student Name

Master of Science in Accounting, Thomas Edison State University

ACC-6070: Accounting and Information Systems Design and Implementation

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the two schemes in the case, one internal and one external, which the paper analyzes side by side.
2

Fake Vendors and a Spoofed Email: Fraud and Computer Crime at a Paterson Manufacturer

Introduction

Fraud is any means a person uses to gain an unfair advantage over another, and in organizations it takes two broad forms: misappropriation of assets and fraudulent financial reporting. Computer fraud uses technology to commit or conceal it. Romney and Steinbart (2018) present the fraud triangle as the reason fraud occurs: pressure, opportunity and rationalization. Of the three, opportunity is the one an organization can control most directly.

The Case

The clerk, who had worked in accounts payable for nine years, could add vendors to the master file and approve invoices under $5,000. She created three vendors with names close to real suppliers, submitted invoices just under the limit and directed payment to accounts she controlled. Separately, an email that appeared to come from the CFO, sent while he traveled, asked the controller to wire a payment to a supplier's "new bank." The address differed by one letter.

The vendor scheme ran for two years before a new controller noticed that one supplier's address was a residential apartment. By then the clerk had processed 41 invoices to the three vendors, averaging just over $3,700 each, and no invoice had ever been questioned because each fell below the $5,000 review threshold.

Part A: The Fraud Triangle

The pressure and rationalization are personal, and the company could not have controlled them, though an employee assistance program might have eased the pressure. Opportunity was entirely the company's design: the same person authorized vendors, recorded invoices and approved payments.

ElementEvidence in the case
PressureHeavy medical bills for a family member, mentioned to coworkers
OpportunityCould create vendors and approve payments; no one reviewed the vendor master file
RationalizationTold investigators she planned to repay and was underpaid for her years of service
What this page is doingSeparating what the company could not control from what it designed shows why the recommendations target opportunity alone.
3

Part B: Classifying the Schemes

The vendor scheme is asset misappropriation through billing fraud, using fictitious vendors, and the computer was the means of entering and approving them. Keeping invoices below the approval threshold is a common concealment step. The email is business email compromise, a form of social engineering that uses spoofing: the attacker posed as an executive and used urgency and travel to discourage verification. Billing schemes rank among the most common forms of asset misappropriation, and most frauds come to light through tips rather than audits, which argues for a reporting hotline (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2024).

In Romney and Steinbart's classification of computer fraud by where it occurs, the vendor scheme is input fraud: false data entered into an otherwise working system. The email attack also exploited input, persuading an authorized user to enter a fraudulent payment. Neither required altering programs or hacking into the system, which is typical; most computer fraud uses legitimate access in illegitimate ways.

Part C: Controls That Close Each Gap

Analytics would likely have caught the vendor scheme early, since a test for invoices clustered just under an approval limit, or for vendors sharing a bank account with an employee, takes minutes to run each month. Training matters because people, not systems, approved the wire; Wright and Marett (2010) found that employees with more security knowledge and experience were less likely to be deceived by phishing. The company should also review its crime insurance, since the email loss may fall outside coverage designed for employee theft.

Corrective steps matter as well. The company should notify its bank immediately to attempt recovery of the wire, report the email fraud to federal authorities, pursue restitution from the clerk and quantify the loss for an insurance claim. Reviewing other payments made by the clerk, beyond the three vendors already found, would establish whether the fraud was larger.

GapControlType
One person creates vendors and pays themSeparate vendor master maintenance from payables; vendor changes approved by purchasingPreventive
No review of new vendorsMonthly report of new and changed vendors reviewed by the controller; match vendor addresses and bank accounts to employee recordsDetective
Invoices kept under the approval limitData analytics flagging repeated invoices just below thresholdsDetective
Wire requested by emailCall-back verification to a known number for any change of bank details or wire requestPreventive
Staff unaware of spoofingTraining with simulated phishing; banners on external emailPreventive
Frauds discovered lateAnonymous hotlineDetective

References

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2024). Occupational fraud 2024: A report to the nations.

Romney, M. B., & Steinbart, P. J. (2018). Accounting information systems (14th ed.). Pearson.

Wright, R. T., & Marett, K. (2010). The influence of experiential and dispositional factors in phishing: An empirical investigation of the deceived. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 273-303. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270111

Reading the ACC 6070 Module 3 assignment instructions

Module 3 asks students to explain why a fraud happened, how it was done and what would have stopped it. Expect questions or cases that apply the fraud triangle, distinguish asset misappropriation from fraudulent reporting, classify computer fraud by input, processor, program, data or output, identify attack techniques such as phishing, spoofing, malware and social engineering, and recommend preventive, detective and corrective controls. Many prompts present a real or composite case to analyze. Some versions ask for a fraud risk assessment of a whole process or for a comparison of two schemes. Expect to classify each technique precisely and to justify every control you recommend with the gap it closes.

How this ACC 6070 Module 3 example is built

The introduction defines fraud, computer fraud and the fraud triangle. The case is described once. Part A tables the evidence for each element of the triangle and explains which element the company controls. Part B classifies both schemes and techniques, with professional survey evidence on how frauds are detected. Part C tables a control for each gap, labeled by type, and adds analytics and insurance. The structure moves from why the fraud happened to how it was done to how to prevent it. The case facts are kept separate from the analysis so each conclusion can be traced to evidence. A closing table pairs controls with gaps. Each recommended control is labeled by type.

ACC 6070 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks

A fraud case analysis like this one is worth 7 points of the ACC-6070 grade. For fraud cases, mentors look for correct application of the fraud triangle, accurate classification of schemes and computer fraud techniques, controls that address the specific weaknesses and the distinction between preventive and detective controls. Support from professional and scholarly sources and clear organization complete the grade. Mentors give the most credit to controls that would actually have stopped or exposed this fraud, explained in terms of the opportunity they remove. Generic lists of controls earn little. Distinguishing asset misappropriation from fraudulent reporting, and naming the technique used in each scheme, is checked closely. A short account of the corrective steps after discovery, such as recovery attempts and insurance claims, rounds out the analysis.

ACC 6070 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks

Fraud answers usually lose points by recommending generic controls not tied to the case, treating pressure and rationalization as controllable, and misnaming techniques. Tie each control to the gap it closes. Classify each control as preventive, detective or corrective. Name the computer fraud technique precisely. Begin with the opportunity the fraudster exploited, then design the control that would have removed it. Check whether each control prevents or detects, and include at least one of each. Name the technique exactly, such as spoofing rather than hacking, and cite the professional survey for detection methods. A free first sample of your own ACC-6070 Module 3 case is available on request.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

Request this one custom, free All ACC-6070 module samples

More ACC 6070 and Master of Science in Accounting sample papers

ACC 6070 Module 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free ACC 6070 Module 3 sample paper?

The Paterson manufacturer fraud case appears above: the fraud triangle applied to a payables clerk, a fictitious vendor scheme and email spoofing, with controls for each gap.

What are the three elements of the fraud triangle?

Pressure, opportunity and rationalization; organizations control opportunity most directly.

What is business email compromise?

A scam in which an attacker impersonates an executive or supplier by email to trick staff into sending money or data.

What control prevents fictitious vendor fraud?

Separating vendor master file maintenance from invoice approval and payment, with review of new and changed vendors.

What is the difference between preventive and detective controls?

A preventive control blocks an error or fraud in advance, while a detective control reveals one that has already happened.