Reporting, Recovery, and Fraud Prevention Controls
Domain 9 tests how findings become defensible reports, recoveries, and preventive controls. The exam expects clear separation between evidence, inference, and recommendation.
Core rules
- A strong report states scope, methodology, evidence reviewed, findings of fact, indicators, limitations, and recommendations. Keep opinion separate from verified fact.
- Findings should cite evidence by date and source. Avoid conclusory labels such as 'fraudster' unless the evidence and legal standard support them.
- Recovery options include subrogation against carriers or third parties, salvage, restitution, recovery of fraudulent payments, and enforcement of guarantees. Each requires a limitation and cost-benefit analysis.
- Prevention controls include enhanced due diligence on brokers, surveyors, and repairers; document verification; pre-risk surveys; route and AIS monitoring; claims analytics; whistleblower channels; and targeted training.
- Root-cause analysis should distinguish control failure from individual dishonesty. A report that blames a person without fixing the process leaves the exposure open.
Worked example
A terminal theft claim is proven to involve an altered gate record. The report should identify the documentary discrepancy, the CCTV gap, and the control weakness at the gate. Recovery may target the terminal operator or the driver's employer. Prevention recommendations should include seal reconciliation, CCTV retention standards, and segregation of gate-release duties.
Traps
Do not write a report that lists red flags without findings. Do not recommend recovery without assessing limitation periods, prospects, and cost. Do not confuse punishment with prevention.