ACFE CFE-Law Exam - Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Law exam

Question #: 14
Topic #: 1

Smith, a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). works for the ABC Company, a private entity that operates w\ a jurisdiction with civil laws for defamation, invasion of privacy. and conflict of interest Smith seizes and searches the personal smartphone of Green an employee of ABC even though Green was not suspected of any wrongdong Assuming that Green had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smartphone and Smith conducted the search without a legitmate interest or authority, under which of the following claims would Green MOST LIKELY be able to recover damages against Smith?

ASlander

BIntrusion into Green's private matters

CPublic disclosure of private facts

DConflict of interest

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Willard at Feb 03, 2023, 11:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CFE-Law Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Dorinda

4 months ago

Not sure about the conflict of interest claim, feels off.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nana

4 months ago

C could be a stretch, but I see the angle.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kris

4 months ago

Wait, can he really sue for that? Seems a bit extreme.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sherell

5 months ago

Agreed, B makes the most sense here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kimbery

5 months ago

Definitely B, that’s a clear case of intrusion!

upvoted 0 times

...

Ellsworth

5 months ago

I’m a bit confused about the conflict of interest option. Does that really fit in this scenario? I thought it was more about business relationships.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fannie

5 months ago

This question seems similar to one we practiced on privacy violations. I think Green could definitely argue for intrusion into his private matters.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delila

5 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like slander might not apply since it’s more about spoken defamation, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Gladis

5 months ago

I remember we discussed privacy rights in class, and I think the best claim here would be about intrusion into private matters.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elin

5 months ago

I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The .toUpperCase() method seems like the obvious choice to convert the string to uppercase.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lezlie

5 months ago

It seems like configuring the group policy for local authentication could solve this, but I'm a bit uncertain if that's the key step needed.

upvoted 0 times

...

Augustine

5 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question about communication policies between CSPs and clients. I'll focus on understanding the key points of each answer choice and pick the one that best explains the need for an established policy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Andrew

5 months ago

I'm a bit confused. I feel like I studied “inclusive plan” but it doesn't sound exactly right.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tammara

10 months ago

I'm going with B. Smith should have known better than to go rummaging through an employee's personal device without a valid reason.

upvoted 0 times

Latricia

9 months ago

User3: Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries by searching Green's personal smartphone.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nydia

9 months ago

User2: Agreed, that was a clear violation of privacy.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lisandra

9 months ago

User1: B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Aileen

10 months ago

Haha, I bet Green wishes he had a 'Phone Fortress' app to keep people like Smith out of his business!

upvoted 0 times

Laquita

9 months ago

C) Public disclosure of private facts

upvoted 0 times

...

Tamesha

10 months ago

B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorenza

10 months ago

A) Slander

upvoted 0 times

...

Louann

10 months ago

I think C, Public disclosure of private facts, is also a strong option. Smith's actions could be seen as a breach of Green's privacy, even if he didn't actually disclose anything.

upvoted 0 times

Cherry

8 months ago

Agreed, Green should have the right to privacy in his personal belongings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Delfina

8 months ago

I think that's a valid point too, Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries.

upvoted 0 times

...

Graciela

8 months ago

B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Vanesa

8 months ago

Definitely, invading someone's privacy like that is a serious issue.

upvoted 0 times

...

Beatriz

9 months ago

I agree, C seems like the most relevant claim in this situation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Edelmira

9 months ago

C) Public disclosure of private facts

upvoted 0 times

...

Shala

9 months ago

B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Evan

9 months ago

A) Slander

upvoted 0 times

...

Brinda

9 months ago

D) Conflict of interest

upvoted 0 times

...

Raylene

9 months ago

C) Public disclosure of private facts

upvoted 0 times

...

Carey

10 months ago

B) Intrusion into Green's private matters

upvoted 0 times

...

Laine

10 months ago

A) Slander

upvoted 0 times

...

Naomi

10 months ago

Definitely B, Intrusion into Green's private matters. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone without consent or a warrant.

upvoted 0 times

...