In March 2005, Byron was offered a job as manager of a public house in Hampshire. He had many years experience in the pub trade but had never managed an entire pub before. He explained to the pub owner that he would need some help with book-keeping. The owner explained a system of record-keeping and banking which he himself had devised. When the quarterly VAT return was due in July, the owner checked the records and found that there appeared to be a discrepancy in the banking. He complained to the police and Byron was charged with theft of the shortfall and false accounting. The forensic expert was instructed to review the accounting records and banking on behalf of the defence. The expert gave his opinion of the elements required in a properly designed accounting system for a pub and highlighted the many serious deficiencies in the system devised by the pub owner and the difficulties that Byron would have experienced in attempting to operate it. He also pointed to a number of possible causes of the cash discrepancy, other than theft by Byron. When the case came to court, many of the points in this report were put to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. At the close of the prosecution, based on the evidence, the judge agreed that Byron had no case to answer and he was released. Consider the above case while answering the following questions: i. What do you think may be lacking in the owners self-devised accounting system? ii. Give some possible causes of the shortfall other than theft by Byron