Who in hear agrees that the techniques of CSI are similar to internal auditing?

Question

Who believes that that they are the same in that the both have to search and find whats wrong and investigate it and fix it if they can...only difference being CSI deals with crimes while internal auditing deals with business

Answer 1

this is interesting, but probably a good comparison none the less. Csi tries to find a timeline of the crime, as in "what happened?" and "why?". internal auditing definetly preforms the same "function". the "techniques" may actually be different, unless you're dealing with digital forensics or something (my specialty), but the "functions" of the two are very similar.

note my high best answer score. i know.

Answer 2

I would disagree.

The CSI on television is a stylized version of forensics and criminalistics. In other words, it is a fable about trying to find out what went wrong according to the evidence (never mind the really boring stuff about criminology/forensics).

Audit is not necessarily trying to find out what went wrong, but trying to prevent crime in the first place. Internal audit eccentially looks at the internal controls, tests the controls and do some trial tests on journal entries/supporting collateral. In other words, it's more like being a security guard than a criminalist.

When auditors do find something wrong, they suggest corrections to the internal controls and expand their searches to see if there is a bigger issue. About 99.9% of the time there is an anomaly, it is a mistake - not fraud. If there is suspected fraud, then evidence is gathered. If there is enough evidence, then the culprits are fired and/or prosecuted.

In my profession as an auditor, I have found shenanigans. It's not sexy, hard work and is sometimes quite boring.