The earnings, profit, or pension (, 2018). A

The sports centre has not undertaken work in the way required to under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, breaking their statutory duty towards Karim and resulting in the possibility of a negligence claim, for which Karim must follow the procedures outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (, 2018). In this case, a forensic accountant will become involved primarily to ascertain the cost of damages or economic loss incurred as a result of Karim’s injury. Forensic accountants are adept at integrating accounting and auditing skills with investigative skills and horizontal thinking to give thorough and independent assessments (, 2018). Additionally, their observations and analysis will be of a standard suitable to present in a court of law, and if required, a forensic accountant familiar with the area in question can act as an expert witness to add validity to the claim for Karim.Three types of loss may arise for Karim, loss of earnings, profit, or pension (, 2018). A forensic accountant will be able to carry out detailed investigations into the assessment for Karim’s loss of earnings whether he is self-employed, or employed. If he is a self-employed or the owner of a business, they can assess the loss of profit by taking into consideration various factors, such as trading history, growth trends, or impacts caused on income or expense streams. Lastly, the loss of pension can be highly complicated, especially if Karim is contributing towards both a state and private pension. However, through similar financial and investigative analysis, a final cost of damages towards Karim as a result of the personal injury can be determined.Beyond this, a forensic accountant acting as an expert witness can start to build an understanding through investigations as to why the correct actions were not undertaken by the sports centre. For example, improper documentation and training of staff that perhaps should not have let Karim and others play on the hazardous pitch.Negligence is a tort committed when a breach of legal duty of care results in damage or loss. Four elements are examined for negligence to be proven. It has to be established whether the plaintiff was owed a legal duty of care (Donoghue v Stevenson) (HeustonM.A, R, 2018), that the defendant breached that duty by action or lack of action (Nettleship v Weston) (, 2018), if the defendant’s action or inaction is what caused the plaintiff’s damage (Smith v Leech Brain & Co.) (, 2018), and that the plaintiff was injured or harmed (The Wagon Mound (No. 2)) (, 2018).The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 applies to the sports centre and its employees as per government regulations (, 2018), requiring them to carry out what is reasonably practicable (Sections 2&3) to ensure people’s health and safety. Thus, the sports centre owed a statutory duty of care to Karim.Reasonably practicable is defined as balancing the level of risk against the measures required to control the risk, it should not be disproportionate in terms of time, money or effort required (, 2018). Ensuring that water stops leaking from the pipes onto the indoor football pitch, or placing a method to prevent water pooling, as well as pre-emptively warning players due to enter the pitch does not exceed what is reasonably practicable. In fact, had the sports centre not been able to contain the leak, the indoor football pitch should have been closed off for activities. This is due to the sports centre’s requirement under law to ensure the playing surface is in good repair, and free from slip and trip hazards (, 2018).Therefore, it is clear that the sports centre owed a legal duty of care to Karim, their inaction breached that legal duty of care, resulting in Karim becoming injured, and that it was the sports centre’s inaction that caused Karim’s injury. Karim can successfully pursue a negligence claim.Globalisation and the increasingly international nature of organisations has brought with it increased scrutiny and regulatory investigations into fraud (, 2018), arguably fueled by scarring scandals like Enron or WorldCom (, 2018). Thus, organisations and their legal counsels use forensic accountants to fulfil and supplement a range of investigative functions to identify and mitigate fraud.One such function is investigative accounting. Activities include the review of all factual information with professional skepticism, then providing suggestions for courses of action. Tracing and back-tracing of misappropriated assets, and crucially, their recovery (, 2018). Coordinating with other relevant experts, like document examiners or industry specialists.Once it is clear an investigation could lead to legal proceedings, a litigation hold is communicated to all pertinent departments. From here, forensic accountants can provide litigation support (, 2018). They can assist in the support or rebuttal of a claim; provide a preliminary assessment of the case by validating evidence and reviewing relevant physical and digital documentation identifying areas of potential damages or loss. They can attend examination and discovery processes to review the case testimony and form additional questions for the counsel from their understanding of financial issues. Further, they can act as an expert witness for the case, reviewing and cross-examining the opposing expert’s reports and positons.To conclude, using external parties, especially when management is potentially involved in fraud, can prevent low moral from breeding internally, and reduce adverse public scrutiny.Though a simple concept, the methods employed by offenders of ML are anything but. Highly complex ML usually has three phases (, 2018):Placement- placing criminal money into the financial system.Layering- obscures the origin by moving money around via complex transactions often using companies or trusts in different jurisdictions globally.Integration- making criminal money reappear as legitimate funds or investments, often through legitimate investments, eg. real estate.In order to combat these phases, and for professionals to avoid becoming involved in ML, safeguards are to be adopted in the form of money laundering regulations (MLR) (, 2018). MLR 2007 was recently refreshed as MLR 2017 which brought updated implementations from the EU’s 4th Directive on Money Laundering into UK law (, 2018). Key aspects are outlined below:Whole firm risk assessment (S.18)- Assess the risks faced by the business and clients involved in ML or terrorist financing. The nature of the assessment will depend largely on the size and nature of the firm in question, but it is important that the assessment is well documented.Internal controls – officer responsible for compliance (S.21a)- A money laundering compliance principle (MLCP) must be appointed to the board of directors or equivalent, and a nominated reporting officer (MLRO), who reports suspicious activity to the NCIS.Internal controls – screening of relevant employees (S.21b)- Employees with any involvement to detection or prevention of ML must be assessed for competence, conduct, and integrity. They must receive regular training on how to deal with transactions or activities relating to ML.Internal controls – independent audit function (S.21c)- Regular ML compliance review headed by MLCP to monitor anti-ML policies and procedures.Policies, controls and procedures: (S.19 and S.20)- Written documentation of anti-ML policies, controls, and procedures must be maintained and approved by senior management.Client due diligence- Requirement to carry out due diligence prior to creating a business relationship and identify anything relevant to internal ML risk assessments. Look out for changing client identity, inconsistent transactions, or changes in client services.To summarise, checks, procedures and controls must be put in place to anticipate and prevent ML. Staff must be trained to deal with ML procedures and law. An MLCP and MLRO must be appointed and report to NCIS (, 2018). Lastly, client due diligence must be undertaken before any business is conducted (Taylor, J, 2018).Further than existing regulatory safeguards, implementing and adopting emerging technologies will significantly reduce the risk of ML activities over the next decade (, 2018). Blockchain platforms, an immutable, cryptographically protected, decentralised ledger allow for all company transactions to be recorded with no fraud. Artificial intelligence (AI) will carry out data analysis on this transactional data, such as existing platforms like IBM Watson, to automatically identify any anomalous trends in client data. AI will further use natural language and sentiment APIs to understand and assist in the implementation of MLR 2017 for businesses across the UK no matter their size.The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 outline the three primary money laundering (ML) offences in sections 327, 328 and 329 (, 2018).S.327 identifies the actus reus of the offense as concealing, disguising, converting, transferring, or removing criminal property from England and Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. S.328 is a broad offense, whereby a person commits an offense if they enter or become involved in an arrangement which they are aware or suspect facilitate (by any means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person. Under S.329, an offense is committed if a person acquires, uses, or has possession of criminal property (Taylor, J, 2018).It is necessary to prove the property was benefited from criminal activity, and that the offender was aware (section 340 POCA). Prosecution can use circumstantial evidence allowing the jury to infer the offender had necessary knowledge or suspicion.Beyond these main offenses, S.330, S.331, and S.332 relate to a failure to disclose offenses, itself resulting in an offense (, 2018). S.330 sets a responsibility on employees within the regulated sector to report, where they have reasonable grounds to, what they know or suspect to be ML. S.331 follows that if a nominated officer within the regulated sector who received a disclosure based on S.330 and does not pass the information on to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), they have committed an offense. S.332 creates a similar offense for nominated officers outside the regulated sector.Lastly, S.333 outlines an offense as doing or saying anything to tip-off an offender under investigation, or even if a report has not yet been made (, 2018).