Tom Borgers is putting together a conference for Certified Fraud Examiners. It’s scheduled for June 14, 2013, and will be held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which is part of the City University of New York. I’m a presenter; David Kotz is keynoting; it should be a decent day.
What I’m looking forward to is the Meet the Speakers cocktail party, the evening before. Speakers have to be there; attendees should take advantage of this unique opportunity to hang out with a savvy group of anti-fraud experts. Even though I am a presenter, I don’t usually get to just hang with other presenters. At the Meet the Speakers event, these anti-fraud experts are, essentially, trapped. I want to know what the heck it is they are thinking about qui tam actions. I suspect I will get some insight.
Tom Borgers hatched the Meet the Speakers event, and to me, it is one of the more compelling reasons to attend the conference. All in all, the event is a good deal – 8 CPEs for just under $ 200. The cadre of presenters suggests the workshops may be relatively painless for the audience. CFEs are not typically highly skilled presenters, and with the exception of Harry Markopolos, I can’t think of the last time I listened to a CFE presenter who made me laugh, but overall, it seems like the John Jay conference is sensible use of time.
The Meet the Speakers party, however, tips the scales for me from “sensible” to “I am so there.” How many opportunities do I get to just chat with folks who are passionate about anti-fraud work? Most of my anti-fraud conversations are case driven; I usually have something specific to accomplish for or with a client. I enjoy that aspect of my life very much, but I love talking systems change theory, and I don’t get many chances. It seems that my professional life right now is all about educating folks about False Claims work. On June 14th, I will again be educating people about qui tam work, but June 13th at Meet the Speakers? I intend to learn how my colleagues think they are “fighting fraud,” without greater involvement with qui tam whistleblowers. Most of these folks have never heard of qui tam. I want to know what they ARE doing. They can’t possibly very effective.
History has proven that centralized prosecution mechanisms have serious limitations when it comes to effectively addressing fraud. Deferring to corporations to police themselves only seems to encourage misconduct. I hope we’re all in agreement the whole Greenspan Doctrine view that modern, technologically advanced financial markets are best left to police themselves was a costly miscalculation, to put it mildly. Even Greenspan said, “Meh” when asked what he thought of the Greenspan Doctrine.
So what my colleagues doing? Effectively addressing fraud through some largely ineffective system? Believing they are making a difference? Aware of but ignoring misconduct? Actively covering up? Pulling down a check and not much else? Can’t wait to find out at Meet the Speakers. Should be fun!