The Jones Company suspects that a purchasing agent is involved in some kickbacks from suppliers. Her name is Amy. Amy is the purchasing manager. There have been three short tips sent by someone that Army was taking kickbacks. One tip even named a particular supplier, East Coast Company. To date no evidence exists to support this kickback scheme. The company hired a forensic accountant to potentially investigate this situation. The accountant is troubled that no evidence now exists to suspect Amy, but everyone seems to be pointing the finger at Amy. All others now expect the accountant to gather the necessary evidence to convict Amy. These employees suspect that Amy has been on trips provided by suppliers and that she may have money stashed in foreign bank accounts. But before the accountant has time to gather evidence, the other employees want to confront Amy and accuse her of stealing. They think with this confrontation, Amy will confess. They will simply say to Amy that they have evidence against her, even though they have none. The forensic accountant is asked to attend this confrontation, but she has reservations. She does not feel comfortable lying to someone, even if that person may be guilty of a crime. But the other employees point out that police do that all of the time to potential suspects. The forensic accountant convinces the rest to allow her to run her own investigation prior to this confrontation. What steps might the forensic accountant follow to proceed with her investigation? What mistakes, if any, have already been make in the investigation? The Jones Company suspects that a purchasing agent is involved in some kickbacks from suppliers. Her name is Amy. Amy is the purchasing manager. There have been three short tips sent by someone that Army was taking kickbacks. One tip even named a particular supplier, East Coast Company. To date no evidence exists to support this kickback scheme. The company hired a forensic accountant to potentially investigate this situation. The accountant is troubled that no evidence now exists to suspect Amy, but everyone seems to be pointing the finger at Amy. All others now expect the accountant to gather the necessary evidence to convict Amy. These employees suspect that Amy has been on trips provided by suppliers and that she may have money stashed in foreign bank accounts. But before the accountant has time to gather evidence, the other employees want to confront Amy and accuse her of stealing. They think with this confrontation, Amy will confess. They will simply say to Amy that they have evidence against her, even though they have none. The forensic accountant is asked to attend this confrontation, but she has reservations. She does not feel comfortable lying to someone, even if that person may be guilty of a crime. But the other employees point out that police do that all of the time to potential suspects. The forensic accountant convinces the rest to allow her to run her own investigation prior to this confrontation. What steps might the forensic accountant follow to proceed with her investigation? What mistakes, if any, have already been make in the investigation