Fraud is not just about the act—it’s about intent. Whether a case involves financial misstatements, procurement fraud, or benefit fraud, prosecutors must show that the fraudster acted with knowledge and willfulness. For Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs), building a strong fraud case means going beyond the numbers to tell a clear story of deception and deliberate misconduct.

In this post, we’ll explore how investigators can prove intent, using real-world case examples and practical strategies.

Why Intent Matters

In criminal fraud cases, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and willfully intended to deceive or mislead. Mere mistakes or poor judgment are not enough. In civil cases, while the threshold may be lower, establishing intent can still significantly influence outcomes, damages, and penalties.

Case Example 1: 

United States v. Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos)

Holmes was convicted in 2022 on multiple counts of fraud for misleading investors about her blood-testing technology. What helped prove intent?

• Internal emails and memos contradicted public claims.

• Witness testimony showed Holmes was aware of the technology’s flaws.

• Prosecutors emphasized her pattern of deceptive communications and repeated efforts to suppress bad results.

• Tip: Gather internal communications, meeting notes, and testimony that show the subject knew the truth but acted otherwise.

Techniques for Proving Intent

1. Pattern of Conduct

Demonstrating repeated, consistent behavior helps counter defenses of negligence or oversight.

Example: In Washington’s Employment Security Department fraud cases, fraudsters often submitted falsified documents multiple times over weeks—evidence of a calculated scheme rather than a one-time mistake.

2. Concealment Efforts

Attempts to hide fraud (e.g., altered documents, deleted records, shell entities) often demonstrate consciousness of guilt.

Example: In U.S. v. Bernard Ebbers (WorldCom), fake journal entries and off-book transactions were central to proving he orchestrated the fraud.

3. Inconsistent Statements

Conflicting explanations or rapidly changing stories during interviews can reveal intent to mislead.

Investigator Tip: Document every interview carefully and compare initial statements with later testimony or documentary evidence.

4. Red Flags Ignored

Showing that the suspect was aware of red flags but chose to disregard them can support a claim of willfulness.

For example, if an executive ignored internal audit warnings or compliance officer alerts, it can be powerful in court.

5. Motive and Opportunity

While not direct proof, establishing financial pressure, bonuses tied to performance, or personal debt helps paint the bigger picture.

In State of Washington v. Harold Crawford (a state procurement fraud case), the defendant inflated invoices and funneled funds to shell companies he controlled. Financial strain was a known factor.

Documentation That Supports Intent

CFEs should focus on collecting:

• Emails and messages

• Policy violations and prior warnings

• Training completion records (to refute “I didn’t know” defenses)

• False certifications or signatures

• Patterns of behavior across multiple accounts or transactions

Final Thoughts

Intent can be the hardest element to prove in a fraud case—but it’s also the most compelling when done right. CFEs must approach investigations with the mindset of building a narrative: not just what happened, but why. By looking for patterns, documenting concealment, and highlighting inconsistencies, we help prosecutors and regulators present stronger, more persuasive cases.

As fraud schemes become more complex and digital, proving intent will remain both a challenge and a cornerstone of effective enforcement.

Want to contribute your own story about a case involving intent? Reach out to the ACFE PNW Chapter—we’d love to share your insights in an upcoming member spotlight.