Why Doesn’t Someone Stop the Scams?

Wondering why frauds at public companies aren’t being pursued by the Feds?

Consumers are often left wondering why the Securities and Exchange Commission doesn’t heavily pursue allegations of fraud against public companies like Overstock.com (NASDAQ:OSTK), Usana Health Sciences (NASDAQ:USNA), Herbalife (NYSE:HLF), and the like. I’ve always said the answer is simple: There are not enough resources devoted to investigating and prosecuting fraud in public companies. Executives are free to use phony accounting measures and other false information to hype the company with little fear of action by the SEC.

And the numbers easily illustrate my point. Prosecutions are way down. The Justice Department is on pace to record the fewest prosecutions for securities fraud since 1991.

Here are the numbers that were compiled by researchers from Syracuse University, using data from the Justice Department:

• 133 securities fraud prosecutions in the first eleven months of 2008
• 437 securities fraud prosecutions in 2000
• 513 securities fraud prosecutions in 2002
• 9 Justice Department prosecutions for securities fraud that came from SEC investigations in 2007
• 69 Justice Department prosecutions for securities fraud that came from SEC investigations in 2000

The excuse for the almost complete failure to prosecute for securities fraud? A focus on investigating terrorism threats since 2001.

And the SEC says that it’s using “non-criminal means” like fines and deferred prosecution agreements to regulate the marketplace. They say that cases handled with civil or administrative remedies are at 636 this year, compared to 503 in 2000.

Source: http://undress4success.com/stop-scams/

Article written by Tracy Coenen is a forensic accountant and fraud examiner in Chicago and Milwaukee who investigates white collar crimes, including cases of financial statement fraud, embezzlement, tax fraud, and insurance fraud

Notable Financial Scams of recent years

Wall Street veteran Bernard Madoff is alleged to have lost about $50 billion for his clients, which included major hedge funds.

But that alleged swindle has a lot of company in the annals of financial scams. Crooked financiers and rogue traders have tried everything from Ponzi schemes and old-fashioned embezzlement to the creation of phantom companies to enrich themselves or make up for huge losses before their clients or bosses noticed.

Here are some of financial skulduggery's greatest hits of recent years.

Allen Stanford - February 2009

High-flying Texas billionaire Allen Stanford and his companies are accused of fraud.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Stanford and two fellow executives fraudulently sold $8 billion in high-yield certificates of deposit.

The SEC said they reported "improbable" high returns and gave "false" assurances to investors. Federal authorities have charged the flamboyant 58-year-old financier and three of his companies with a "massive ongoing fraud." 

Norman Hsu - October 2008

Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged by the US Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a $60 million Ponzi scheme, leading former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to return $850,000 in campaign contributions in 2007.

The SEC said Hsu made political contributions to give himself "a veneer of respectability" and then persuade investors that his investments were legitimate.

Hsu is in federal custody awaiting trial after he was indicted in December for mail fraud, wire fraud and violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Anil Anand - June 2008

Anil Anand, the former CFO of Allied Deals, was ordered to pay restitution of $683.6 million for his part in an international Ponzi scheme that led to losses at some 20 banks around the world, including JP Morgan & Chase. He was also sentenced to seven months of time served.

Five metals traders for Allied Deals were found guilty of conspiracy related to bank, mail and wire fraud and money laundering in a 2004 trial. 

Anand had pleaded guilty in 2002 and agreed to cooperate with the government's investigation into the fraud.

Lou Pearlman - May 2008

Lou Pearlman, the impresario who launched 1990s boy bands the Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for swindling investors and banks out of $300 million.

Pearlman convinced individuals and banks to invest in two companies that existed only on paper, showing them fake financial statements.

US District Judge G Kendall Sharp gave Pearlman the chance to cut his prison time by offering a one-month reprieve for every $1 million in cash he helps a bankruptcy trustee recover for his victims. Theoretically, Pearlman could cancel his entire 300-month sentence by repaying the $300 million debt.

Jerome Kerviel - January 2008

French bank Societe Generale alleged that fraud by a single trader caused a $7.1 billion loss.

Jerome Kerviel, a junior trader, was jailed in connection with the case. He was later released but still faces accusations that he caused SocGen billions of euros of losses.

Richard Fuld, the chief of Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers, called the debacle "everyone's worst nightmare."

James Marquez - November 2007

James Marquez, who co-founded hedge fund Bayou Group with the now also incarcerated Samuel Israel III, and defrauded investors of more than $10 million.

Marquez admitted that between 1996 and 2001, he told investors the funds were reaping large gains even as they sustained consistent losses.

In the summer of 2008, Israel faked his own death and went on a road trip as a fugitive before getting nabbed after a few days.

His mother convinced him to end his high-profile run from justice and he is now in the hands of federal authorities.

Brian Hunter - March/April 2006

Hedge fund Amaranth Advisors LLC and former head trader Brian Hunter racked up $6.4 billion in losses from natural gas contracts before the fund folded in 2006.

In July 2007, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Amaranth and Hunter, alleging they tried to manipulate natural gas futures prices.

Reed Slatkin - September 2003

Financier Reed Slatkin, who helped created Internet service provider Earthlink Inc, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for bilking investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

He had portrayed himself as a shrewd manager whose investments were outperforming the markets, but prosecutors said he was in fact running a Ponzi scheme. He was ordered to pay more than $240 million in restitution to clients.

He is serving time in the Lompoc, California penitentiary and is due for release in 2014, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling - February 2002

Enron employees tell media outlets, including Reuters, about a fake trading floor set up by energy company Enron in 1998 to impress Wall Street analysts.

The news becomes the trigger that brings down the company. In May 2006, former Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay were found guilty of defrauding investors by using off-the-books deals to hide debt and inflate profits. The fraud destroyed the company and came to symbolize a dark era for corporate America.

Skilling, 52, was sentenced to almost 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $45 million in restitution to Enron investors, who lost billions of dollars when the company collapsed.

Lay, 64, died of a heart attack in July 2006. Following legal precedent, the judge in the case threw out the Lay convictions on October 17 because Lay died before a final judgment had been entered and before he could appeal.

John Rushnak - February 2002

Ireland's largest bank, Allied Irish, revealed a rogue US trader, John Rusnak, had defrauded its US subsidiary of up to $750 million.

Rusnak was sentenced in January 2003 to seven and a half years in prison.

Yasuo Hamanaka - June 1996

  He admitted devising a scheme that netted him $850,000 in salary and bonuses from 1997 to 2001.

Japanese trading house Sumitomo Corp suffered a $2.6 billion loss over 10 years from unauthorized copper trades, primarily by chief copper trader Yasuo Hamanaka.

Sumitomo fired Hamanaka, once dubbed "Mr Five Percent" because his trading team was believed to control 5 percent of the world's copper trading.

He was later jailed for eight years.

Nick Leeson -  February 1995

One of Britain's oldest investment banks, Barings Plc, collapsed after a lone futures trader in Singapore, Nick Leeson, lost $1.4 billion in derivatives trading.

Leeson spent three and half years in a Singapore jail. Barings was subsequently sold to Dutch bank ING for one pound.

After returning to the UK, Leeson wrote a book about the scandal, “Rogue Trader”, which was later also made into a movie. In 2007, Leeson became chief executive of Galway United Football Club.

His agent has said Leeson charges up to $11,750 for appearing as an after-dinner speaker.

Source : The Economic Times, Mumbai

Namco Owes Creditors More than $500 Million

Bankrupt businessman Ezri Namvar’s main company, Namco Capital Group Inc., owes $545 million to 464 creditors, according to documents filed March 15 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles.

The documents show that Namco’s assets are valued at $671 million, which means his assets exceed liabilities by $126 million. However, that’s not particularly rare in a bankruptcy case, especially if payments are not being made.

“People can throw you into bankruptcy, even if you do have enough assets to pay off debts (if) you are not paying off debt,” said attorney Seong Kim, who was not involved in the involuntary bankruptcy action but is representing a Namvar creditor.

Such filings provide the first, official big-picture look in bankruptcy cases.

The Namco assets and liabilities list was signed by Howard Grobstein, a forensic accountant hired by Namco as president in February. The document states that the asset values are from Namco’s internal accounting and have not been verified for accuracy.

Grobstein, Namvar, Namvar’s bankruptcy counsel and Namco did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The Brentwood businessman and his investment company were forced into bankruptcy in December by a handful of creditors who weren’t being paid and were fearful he was disposing of assets to pay back some creditors preferentially.

Namvar, who sought bankruptcy protection for himself and his investment company in January, is feared to have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in investments largely made personally by members of his Persian Jewish community in and around Beverly Hills.

Namvar was due to file a list of his personal assets and liabilities on March 15, but one could not be found on the bankruptcy court’s Web site by the Business Journal.

However, the documents filed over the weekend publicly divulge for the first time a lengthy list of Namco’s creditors, and will heighten fears that his assets had been grossly overstated since many were acquired at the height of the real estate bubble.

The Business Journal reported in its March 9 issue that an asset list distributed in November during out-of-court settlement talks showed that Namvar and his company stated assets totaling $1.55 billion. What’s more, that figure was far smaller than a less detailed July asset list that assigned a $2.43 billion market value to the holdings. The internal lists identify the holdings as those of Namvar and his company.

The bankruptcy documents also shows eight transfers of Namco properties worth $10.5 million to creditors that were made in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy. These transactions could be unwound if they are found to support preferential payments.

The bankruptcy documents list 224 limited liability companies, special purpose entities and people that Namco identifies as owing it money. The Business Journal previously reported that Namvar established such entities to hold real estate, and many of the LLCs were on the internals lists.

However, also listed in the latest bankruptcy filing are several of Namvar’s relatives – including his four children and at least one brother. The family members are stated to owe Namco $246 million in total.

Another attorney representing creditors said the family ownership groups confirmed widespread belief in the Byzantine structure of Namvar’s businesses.

“I'm not surprised," said attorney A. David Youssefyeh. “In spite of the assertions of Mr. Namvar and his brothers over the last couple of months, this is just more proof Mr. Namvar worked in concert with his family members and that they were all one in the same.”

Unsecured creditors named in the bankruptcy filing include several people previously identified as creditors by the Business Journal, including Abraham Assil, Benjamin Efraim, and Arash Hakhamian.

Source: Los Angeles Business Journal, By Daniel Miller

Greed and Need

Seattle: 

There are plenty of rich people to hate these days, starting with Bernie Madoff, who faces the possibility of spending his remaining years in a cell where he can think about all the lives he ruined. Is there a Hell painful enough for him? A place where, say, he can listen to Bush economic theorists espouse the joys of toothless regulation while looking at pictures of the Holocaust survivors who are among Madoff ’s victims? 
    

I was thinking of the Ponzi scheme thief and his cellar mates in the dungeon of truly awful rich people — Ken Lay, late of Enron and this world, and Leona “Only the Little People Pay Taxes” Helmsley — while working up a froth of good cheer over some other tycoons. 
    

Bill Gates Sr is 83 years old, six-foot-seven inches tall, with the kind of thin-haired crown that newborn babies and older men have in common. He labours daily trying to give away one of the world’s biggest fortunes, that made by his son. Senior, as he’s known, has a short, big-hearted book coming out next month, Showing Up for Life, which should be handed out to all those hedge-fund managers now filing for bankruptcy or otherwise wondering why their lives are so empty. Hi book is a sort of Last Lecture from the Greatest Generation. 
    

The elder Gates, whom i’ve met in passing here, is a child of the Great Depression who grew up with the fear of being poor. He is also a veteran who went to college on the G I Bill — one of government’s great escalators into the middle class. In the political realm, he is best known for fighting George W Bush’s efforts to repeal the estate tax, a tax he feels is needed to prevent a permanent economic aristocracy in this country. 
    

Warren Buffett, who until the recent meltdown was the world’s richest man (Bill Gates is tops again), is a fellow far-sighted traveller. Like all but the most fraudulent — or cautious — investors, Buffett has lost a pile on paper in the last year. He made news last week when he compared the current crisis to an economic Pearl Harbor. But he was more forgiving than many, saying that we may have to look beyond our anger at the crooks, legal and otherwise, who got us into this mess. 
    

Buffett and Gates father-and-son are following a path blazed by John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and other former malefactors of great wealth, in Teddy Roosevelt’s famous phrase. The odd, pinch-faced Rockefeller, considered the richest man in history with a net worth of nearly $200 billion in inflationadjusted dollars, was no saint, and neither was Carnegie. 
    

Carnegie, the steel giant, ran a conglomerate that could show iron-fisted brutality towards its workers. But when he gave back, he gave it nearly all back, and it’s still paying dividends. “No idol”, he said, “is more debasing than the worship of money.” 
    

Travelling through the broken small towns of the Great Plains, i’ve been struck by what is often the one lasting monument in an otherwise bleak community — the Carnegie Library, as much a path to citizenship and the world’s great minds for Mexican meat packers now as it was for poor Irish immigrants a century ago. 
    

Enlightened wealth may seem oxymoronic in this hard year, a time when four million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the Great Recession while bailed out bank executives continue to spend like Homer Simpson in a doughnut emporium. But there is a better way. I sat with Patsy Bullitt Collins just before this Seattle heiress of a broadcasting empire died of lung cancer a few years ago. She lived alone in a one-bedroom apartment, quietly giving away more than $100 million. But she protested when i suggested that her generosity was a way to return wealth made by her mother. “I don’t give back,” she said. “I give forward.” — NYTNS

Source: The Times of India, Editorial, 17/03/09, By Timoty Egan

The Fundamentals of Corporate Governance

The role of corporate governance is to ensure long-term viability, to steward the company to fulfil its potential while adhering to high ethical standards.

THE Satyam issue is a good opportunity to harvest rich insights into the fundamentals of corporate governance. In discussions on governance, one question that doesn’t normally get the attention it merits is: on whose behalf is the company governed? Whose company is it, really? 
    

The top-of-the-mind response is that a company is governed on behalf of the shareholders. 
    

The course of events at Satyam throws up enough doubts about this answer. First, there has been such a massive dumping of shares and change of ownership, that only a small percentage of those who held Satyam shares in November are shareholders today. Second, it would be incorrect to think the government appointed an independent board only to protect the interests of shareholders, most of whom have bought shares relatively recently at a throw-away price. Among the various stakeholders of any company, the shareholders tend to be the least loyal — selling their holdings at the first sign of trouble. It would be more appropriate to view shareholders as suppliers of money and liquidity rather than as owners. It is clear that the company is not governed only for the benefit of the shareholders. 
    

Is the company then governed on behalf of the employees? Protecting the jobs and interests of the 53,000 employees at Satyam was clearly one driver for the quick government intervention. However, providing employment cannot be the primary purpose of any organisation. As an example, suppose half of Satyam’s customers decide to cancel their contracts, will the Satyam board still continue employing all the staff? So the company is not governed on behalf of its employees. How about the customers? Satyam has an impressive roster of international customers. The need to continue servicing large international clients as well as protect India’s IT reputation must have played a role in the government’s decision to act fast. Just as with employees, it is possible to build a case that a company does not exist purely for the benefit of the customers. 
    

Whose company is it then? One view that has taken root of late is the concept of a stakeholder — a term encompassing the shareholders, customers, employees, suppliers and the society at large. It could be argued that the company is governed on behalf of all stakeholders. While this idea holds some appeal, it fails on two counts. First, what happens if the interests of various stakeholders are in conflict? Second, there is a constant churn of shareholders, employees, customers and suppliers. The nature of the company’s business constantly changes —requiring new employees as well as servicing new customers. When the composition of stakeholders is constantly evolving, how do the ‘governors’ actually decide the best interest of each of these stakeholders? 
    

The only idea that appeals to me is that the company does not really belong to anyone. You govern the company for the company’s own benefit. This is justified based on a pure statutory position that the company is a distinct legal entity, independent of any shareholder or any other stakeholder (a principle established by the House of Lords in the famous case of Solomon vs Solomon & Companyin 1897). 
    

Arie de Geus in his book The Living Company takes this idea further. He is of the view that the only powerful way of looking at a company is as a ‘living organism’, an organism with its own destiny much the same as any living person. The role of governance, then, is one of stewarding the company to achieve its full potential. This is quite similar to a parent guiding and shaping his or her children to be the best they can be in their chosen field of endeavour. 
    

Borrowing these powerful ideas, the answer to the question ‘Whose company is it anyway’ is: no one’s. A company is a unique and distinct individual with its own DNA and destiny. The role of governance, according to me, is three-fold: 

• Ensuring the long-term health and viability of the company; 

• Stewarding the company to fulfil its potential and to become as great as it can be; and 

• Adherence to the highest standards of ethics, statutory compliance and social responsibility 
    

Governments function effectively by distributing power. Most evolved democracies distribute power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Further, an independent press (the fourth estate) is critical to keep these institutions honest and functioning effectively. While this may impair speed and efficiency, it seems to be the most effective mechanism for running countries thus far. 
    

So what are the parallels to corporate governance? In the case of Satyam, there was an undue concentration of power with the founders, disproportionate to their low shareholding. The board was far less independent than required. The core issue, clearly, is balance of power. While individual leadership is a key ingredient of success, visionary leaders know how to enrol a larger team, not just within the company but also in the form of independent board members and advisors, to distribute power and empower their companies to grow independent of themselves. They understand institutions can be built only if they become more important than their leaders. How then do we achieve balance of power within a corporate context? I see a clear parallel between the pillars of government — the legislature, executive and judiciary — and their corporate equivalents for good governance. 
    

The board of the company is, in effect, the legislature. The board’s primary responsibility is to steward the company to achieve its full potential. While, in theory, the board is elected by the shareholders, its job goes beyond catering to only the shareholders. The board balances the needs of the shareholders, employees, customers, vendors and partners, and society at large. This is similar to our expectation of an elected representative, say an MP. While the MP may have been elected from a specific constituency and a specific party, his responsibility goes beyond those constituencies to the country as a whole. Just as the legislature makes laws to govern a country and its people, the board lays down policies that govern the way the company is run. 
    

The management of the company is obviously the executive branch, similar in role and function to that arm of the government. Working under the broad policy, vision and direction of the board, the management team is accountable for meeting the mutually agreed upon goals and objectives, in line with the ethics and values of the company. While the legislature has a more broad-based structure ideal for policy making, the management team has to be more hierarchical and result-focused to ensure efficient execution. It is this separation that helps a company cater to the larger good while retaining execution disciplines. 
    

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws laid down by the legislature and apply them to specific disputes. Currently this function is discharged by the board itself on internal company issues, and by the regulatory bodies and the courts when they relate to the laws of the land. As an example, if the company has disputes relating to income tax, the appellate authorities and the tribunals form the first level of judiciary, with the high courts and Supreme Court stepping in if the issues cannot be resolved. In my view, the judicial role of the board is not as welldeveloped and is often at the root of many corporate governance failures. One possible approach is to strengthen the corporate governance committee and ensure its charter includes a systematic review of company performance on all fronts across stakeholders. Given the size and complexities of today’s corporations, it may even be worthwhile, under the relevant legislation, to turn over the judicial role of the board to another body — the judicial board. 
    

The governance committee can play the role of an independent press by taking a proactive approach in seeking stakeholder feedback, facilitated by external agencies. This goes beyond the whistleblower policies envisaged by today’s governance guidelines. 
    

The Satyam episode has allowed us to look at the fundamental aspects of corporate governance: on whose behalf the company is governed, and how we can distribute power to ensure the longevity and effectiveness of the institution. 

Source: The Economic Times, Mumbai, 16/03/09

Economic crisis exposes financial crime

One of the world's top fraud investigators says there has been a big increase in the detection of fraud cases worldwide because of the global economic meltdown.

Forensic accountant Chris Cass, from global accounting firm Deloitte, has worked on cases including the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Barings Bank and local insurer HIH.

Mr Cass says companies are taking a closer look at their accounts and discovering serious financial crimes.

"I'm certainly beginning to see an almost ... exponential increase in the identification," he said.

"Without going into names, I think its fair to say that all the regulators and law enforcement agencies are extremely busy and getting busier."

On Thursday, disgraced US financier and Wall Street veteran, Bernard Madoff, pleaded guilty to what US prosecutors say is an "unprecedented fraud".

He told the court he was "deeply ashamed and sorry" for defrauding individual investors, charities, trusts, pensions and hedge funds.

The charges include fraud, perjury and money laundering.

Madoff was sent to jail to await sentencing in June. Investigators believe he swindled around $100 billion of investors' money.

Mr Cass says its the worst case of financial crime he has seen.

"I think the Madoff case is almost beyond belief. I've had alot of experience investigating Ponzi schemes where there is really no genuine commercial activity," he said.

Financial crimes include fraud, falsifying company accounts, intellectual property theft and employee theft.

Mr Cass says some of the criminals are those closest to the money including senior executives like chief financial officers.

"More recently we've seen a number of senior executives just completely override the controls and perpetrate significant frauds to either fund a gaming addiction or simply to maintain a lifestyle."

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is investigating the collapse of companies including childcare provider ABC Learning, Allco Finance Group and investment firm Storm Financial.

The corporate regulator is often accused of being a toothless tiger.

Professor Ian Ramsay, the director of the Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation at Melbourne University, says an insufficient budget is the real problem.

"Something like 154 investigations were commenced during the last financial year," he said.

"So that gives us a clear indication into the significant restraints that our regulators operate under.

"They have limited personel, they have limited dollars, and inevitably they must choose - they must make some difficult decisions about which complaints they actually investigate."

ASIC will receive $300 million in federal funds this financial year.

It says the number of attempts to manipulate the sharemarket doubled in 2008.

The corporate regulator received 67 referrals for potential breaches of market rules but there are yet to be any prosecutions.

Chris Cass says Australia's corporate law is adequate but the problem is enforcement both inside and outside the boardroom.

He says senior executives tend to be dominant personalities who may bully junior staff indirectly causing them to breach financial rules and regulations.

"The standards in most countries have increased incredibly with the appointment of non executive boards," he said.

"The issue for me is not the framework, the issue for me is the human interaction between the board and the executive, particularly in times of extreme growth."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au, By Sue Lannin

Forensic Accounting - CSI of Accounting Jobs

Forensic accounting is one of the fastest growing areas of accounting jobs in the market today. This specialized area is interesting and dynamic, and provides unlimited opportunities for the next few decades.
.
Forensic accountants work in two primary areas, investigative accounting and litigation support. Investigative accounting encompasses not just the numbers and documents of a company, but the business environment as well. Forensic accountants investigate the financial operations of an enterprise and prepare information that may be used in a criminal or civil court case. Forensic accountants provide investigative services or provide support for litigation.
.
Forensic accountants will often spend time at the business they are investigating, collecting and analyzing financial data. Most of this analysis is done on the computer, so good computer skills and knowledge of software is essential to this position. The forensic accountant will collect evidence and documentation that may be used in a courtroom proceeding, and will prepare reports to be used the management of the company being investigated, parties to the litigation or law enforcement agencies. Often, the forensic accountant will be required to testify in court or provide depositions as to their findings.
.
Forensic accountants are employed by a variety of companies and agencies. Many law enforcement agencies have forensic accountants on staff to assist with criminal investigations. Often, these accountants follow the money trail to help track and prosecute a criminal. Many CPA firms have forensic accountants on staff, and more firms are specializing in forensic accounting to assist with shareholder and partnership disputes, business loss, fraud or employee theft investigations and professional negligence issues. Other forensic accountants work for or with insurance companies to investigate business interruption and other types of claims.
Forensic accountants routinely work for or with law enforcement agencies, lawyers, insurance companies, business owners and government agencies.
.
About 40% of the top 100 accounting firms in the United States now have a forensic accounting department, and the field is expected to be one of the top 20 job markets in the next few years. How do you become a forensic accountant? A bachelor’s degree in accounting is required, and most are already certified public accountants (CPA’s). Additional coursework in areas like law enforcement and criminal justice is usually required, and some legal training is helpful. You may want to pursue a accreditation as a certified fraud examiner (CFE) from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. This is a nationally recognized accreditation similar to the CPA designation.
.
Entry salaries in this field range from upwards of $30,000 to $60,000, but experienced forensic accountants often exceed $100,000 per year and more. So, if you are looking for a lucrative, interesting job with plenty of upward mobility, consider forensic accounting. With almost unlimited growth for the next few decades, it’s an accounting job with great potential.

Source:http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Jay_Moncliff