A forensic scientist made it into the news for all the reasons a forensic expert never wants to make it into the news. Annie Dookhan, a former chemist for the state of Massachusetts, who provided evidence and expert testimony, was caught forging a colleague’s initials. Once confronted, she admitted that she had forged the signatures of other co-workers and had also been falsifying lab test results for years. As her case unfolded, it turned out that she had broken all kinds of rules and left red flags of her unprofessional behavior all over the place and yet she was able to continue, unchecked, for several years.
To make her resume look more impressive, Dookhan padded her resume with a Master’s degree, in science, that she did not possess. An attorney, speaking about forensic science, described it as a “wild, wild west” and, looking at the case of Annie Dookhan, you could easily believe that. However, this does not need to be the case. When working with a forensic CPA, Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF), you can easily verify any qualifications claimed. CPA licenses can be verified via the relevant state boards and the CFF credential can be verified through the AICPA, who issues the credential. These certifications convey a level of knowledge, experience and expertise so you should check to make sure you have engaged someone who really is whom they claim to be.
Dookhan’s work seemed too good to be true and it turned out that it was. The average monthly testing output of her peers was 50 to 150 samples. Annie Dookhan tested 500 samples a month and she did this without claiming any overtime. A supervisor complained that he never saw her in front of a microscope and another coworker claimed that she would weigh samples without resetting the scales to zero. Despite these and other complaints, nothing was done for years. She continued to deliver several times more test results than any of her colleagues, without any reasonable explanation for her high numbers. In 2010, a coworker found seven separate instances in which Dookhan identified a drug sample as a certain narcotic when it was something else. The coworker explained this away as honest mistakes. When she was finally caught, Dookhan admitted that she routinely tested only five out of every 25 samples. She had been identifying drug samples merely by sight and not carrying out any tests, a practice known as “dry labbing”.
Granted, several coworkers found ways to rationalize the many red flags raised by Dookhan’s behavior. However, there were several fellow workers and supervisors who raised the alarm about Dookhan, voicing their concerns and observations to their superiors. Nothing was done about this for years and then when, in 2010, Dookhan’s work was audited, the audit was hardly anything that would be considered an audit. None of Dookhan’s samples were retested; the auditors merely reviewed her paperwork. This is a classic example of a poor tone at the top. The management at Hinton State Laboratory Institute, where Dookhan worked, received reports of an employee who appeared to be skirting proper procedures and who was definitely, mysteriously outperforming her colleagues by unbelievable margins, yet they seemed reluctant to do anything about this. From Dookhan’s own admissions, she, at times, intentionally changed negative sample results into positive ones. She was also accused of recording inflated weights of samples so that the accused was facing stiffer penalties. She often manipulated test results in favor of the prosecution. This may have made the lab, and Dookhan in particular, a preferred expert for the prosecution. Perhaps the lab liked the business they were getting because of their reputation and management was unwilling to jeopardize things. If management was not interested in enforcing rules and standards, it should not be a surprise that they were so shamelessly flouted for so long. The fallout has been far-reaching. Dookhan tested over 60,000 samples and every one of the results from these tests is now open to being disputed. Some people have already been released from prison, as cases may now have to be retried. The work of everyone in the lab is also under investigation as it is now clear that there was poor oversight and supervision at the lab and it is also possible that Dookhan may have contaminated the work of others. Dookhan was sentenced to three to five years in prison.
Anyone seeking the services of a forensic accountant must never seek an Annie Dookhan. On the face of things, it may appear fantastic to have someone who produces unreal results, is always on your side and invariably tells you what you want to hear. However, you should be encouraged if you work with a forensic accountant who is not afraid to give you the facts, even when the facts are not in your favor. In the long run, what will stand up in court and keep everyone out of trouble is work done without cutting any corners, manipulating the truth or violating the law in any way.