The best course of action for a system administrator who suspects a colleague may be intentionally weakening a system’s validation controls in order to pass through fraudulent transactions is B. Share the concern through a whistleblower communication channel1
According to the CRISC Review Manual, a whistleblower communication channel is a mechanism that allows employees to report suspected fraud or unethical behavior without fear of retaliation or reprisal. A whistleblower communication channel is part of an effective fraud detection and prevention framework, and it helps to promote a culture of integrity and accountability within the organization2
The other options are not as effective or appropriate as sharing the concern through a whistleblower communication channel, because:
•A. Implementing compensating controls to deter fraud attempts may not address the root cause of the problem, and it may also create additional complexity and cost for the system. Moreover, it may not prevent the colleague from finding other ways to bypass the controls or collude with external parties.
•C. Monitoring the activity to collect evidence may expose the system administrator to legal or ethical risks, especially if the monitoring is done without proper authorization or due process. Itmay also delay the reporting and resolution of the issue, and potentially allow more fraudulent transactions to occur.
•D. Determining whether the system environment has flaws that may motivate fraud attempts may be useful for understanding the context and the factors that contribute to the fraud risk, but it does not address the immediate concern of reporting the suspected fraud. It may also imply that the system administrator is trying to justify or rationalize the colleague’s behavior, rather than holding them accountable.
1: CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database, Question ID: 100002 2: CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 224
