Search


PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 25 October at 05:08 - Around 76000 files indexed.


Show results per page

Results for «fraud»:


Total: 500 results - 0.052 seconds

Ad Fraud Knowledge 100%

PPCProtect.com Compendium of ad fraud knowledge for media investors Co-authored by WFA &

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/07/10/ad-fraud-knowledge/

10/07/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

8-antifraud-strategies 97%

GUIDE 8 EFFECTIVE ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGIES 8 Effective Anti-Fraud Strategies THE POWER OF POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION www.identitymind.com 8 EFFECTIVE ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGIES Introduction Detecting fraud is not an exact science.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/10/30/8-antifraud-strategies/

30/10/2014 www.pdf-archive.com

Peebles Stantec RFP Fraud (1) 96%

RFP Fraud + Taxpayer Fraud + MWBE Fraud + Minority Business Theft + Public Waste + Corruption + Bribery + Collusion Every dollar Peebles makes comes directly from taxpayers:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/01/26/peebles-stantec-rfp-fraud-1/

26/01/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Technology-Based Fraud Awareness Show KPMG 95%

guidance Value for money Not another boring Powerpoint training course but a highly engaging training to improve the awareness level of your employees towards technologybased external fraud risks.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/05/16/technology-based-fraud-awareness-show-kpmg/

16/05/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Geijsel CortesBarragan 2016 A Dishonest Election 92%

        Are we witnessing a dishonest election?    A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures    of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for     the Presidency of the United States of America            Axel Geijsel  Tilburg University – The Netherlands      Rodolfo Cortes Barragan  Stanford University – U.S.A.      June 7, 2016         “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you  cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” ­ ​ Abraham Lincoln    “No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered  democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for  fraud, particularly when paperless e­voting systems are used.” ­ Larry Greenemeier, ​ Scientific  American                  Summary Statement     Given the stakes in the outcome of the​  ​ American presidential elections, ensuring the  integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance. Are the results we are witnessing  in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge  over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary  Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We  contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for  election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide  converging evidence for this claim.     First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries  by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do  not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the  discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008  competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we  find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may  have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.      Different outcomes in primary states with paper trails and without paper trails     Data procurement​ : Given the potential that the underlying voting number has been corrupted,  we had to restrict our analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton  and Senator Sanders. To group states according to the accountability of the vote, we used  Ballotpedia and created two groups. First, there are 18 states that feature voting procedures  wherein the accuracy of electoral results of a primary ballot vote are backed by a paper trail.  Second, there are 13 states that do not have such a paper trail.     Analysis​ : ​ The [​ data​ ] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States  without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton, (M ​  = 65.13%, SD = ​ no paper trail​ no   = 10.41%) than states with paper trails (M ​  = 48.53%, SD = ​  = 16.00%), t(29)  paper trail​ paper trail​ paper trail​ = 3.21, P = 0.003,  d = 1.19 [Figure 1]. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting  procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the  Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations,  including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.     Supplemental analysis on caucus states:​  Does the pattern seen in ballot states occur in caucus  states? By the very nature of caucusing procedures, caucus results are generally thought to be  more trustworthy. However, in the current Democratic caucusing cycle, Iowa and Nevada had  caucuses widely alleged to have involved a considerable level of voter suppression and  potential fraud. We examined the [​ data​ ] and found that these two states had far higher support  for Secretary Clinton, [M ​  = 54.71%, SD = ​  = 3.44%] than the other caucus  fraud allegations​ fraud allegation​ states, [M ​  = 31.61%, SD = ​ = 9.98%], t ​  (11) = 3.13, P =  no fraud allegations​ no fraud allegations ​ independent­means​ 0.009, d = 3.10.    Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results    Data procurement​ : We obtained exit poll data from a ​ database​  kept by an expert on the  American elections.      Analysis​ : On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The ​ data  show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest, [M ​ exit   = 54.38%, SD = ​  = 13.95%; M ​  = 57.52%, SD = ​ = 13.87%], t ​  (23) = 3.49, P =  exit​ final​ final ​ dependent­means​ 0.002, d = 0.71.​  ​ While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable  difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even  more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without  paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the  Secretary in the hours following the exit polls [M ​  = 62.93%, SD = ​  = 8.80%; M ​  = 65.68%,  exit​ exit​ final​ SD = ​ = 9.52%], t ​  (9) = 4.68, P < 0.001. In contrast, the effect size is much smaller  final ​ dependent­means​ in states with paper trails, [M ​  = 48.28%, SD = ​  = 13.94%; M ​  = 51.69%, SD = ​ =  exit​ exit​ final​ final ​ 13.77%], t ​  (13) = 2.27, P = 0.04, d = 0.58.  dependent­means​   Irregularities are unique to 2016    To show that the pattern of votes may suggest a systematic effort to undercut Senator Sanders,  we must show that no such patterns were in place in similar elections. Given that Secretary  Clinton lost to President Obama in 2008, their data is a natural control and the best possible  point of comparison for the 2016 data. Thus, as we did for 2016, we tabulated the percentage of  delegates won in each state by (then Senator) Hillary Clinton. The ​ data​  show that, contrary to  the 2016 data, there is no evidence that primary states without paper trails favored Senator  Clinton in 2008, P = 0.38. As such, the patterns of 2016 are different from their best point of  comparison.     Conclusion    Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting  outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our  examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the  exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns  of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is  occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has  overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.         Figure 1. Percent of support for Clinton and Sanders by state voting paper trail  status.     Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References       

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/28/geijsel-cortesbarragan-2016-a-dishonest-election/

28/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

John Lux $300 Million Demand Letter 90%

Page 1 of 36 Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, fraud generally, and credit card crimes.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/04/02/john-lux-300-million-demand-letter/

02/04/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

untitled 1 89%

www.phoenixglobal.com.au Phoenix Global is a private investigations firm run by former Queensland police officer Michael Featherstone.[1] Featherstone is an ex-Surfers Paradise Fraud Squad officer and Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) boss.[2] The firm provides compliance and risk management services as well as conventional private investigation services.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/11/19/untitled-1/

19/11/2015 www.pdf-archive.com

profil-stephanie-piepers-soleil-stephanie-piepers 87%

profil-stephanie-piepers-soleil-stephanie-piepers.txt Vidéo Profil Vigispam de Stéphanie PIEPERS :

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/07/24/profil-stephanie-piepers-soleil-stephanie-piepers/

24/07/2013 www.pdf-archive.com

Ackers v Brazile et al gandce-17-03083 0003.0 (2) 86%

Santa Monica,Ca 90401 greganchors@yahoo.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORG IA ATLANTA DIVISION 1:17 - CV-3 083 CASE#_ _ _ _ __ GREGORY ACKERS Principal Plaintiff FRAUD V.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/08/24/ackers-v-brazile-et-al-gandce-17-03083-0003-0-2/

24/08/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

STEC Complaint FILED 10-25-12 85%

2 1 Moshayedi (“Mark”)3 (the “Securities Fraud Defendants”), each of whom was a 2 senior officer and/or director of STEC, Inc.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/11/15/stec-complaint-filed-10-25-12/

15/11/2012 www.pdf-archive.com

Fraud in Digital Advertising 82%

Ad Injection 44 Eliminating Bot Fraud:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/07/10/fraud-in-digital-advertising/

10/07/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Identity-Verification-Services 82%

Our Mission Organize the world’s identities to make them universally accessible to fight fraud.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/11/28/identity-verification-services/

28/11/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

Protect-our-whistleblowers 82%

The recent fraud case at the Ministry of Transport highlights the ineffectiveness in existing whistleblowing practice - a senior executive stole over $700,000 before she was caught and jailed and the then CEO lost his new position as Auditor-General.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/08/09/protect-our-whistleblowers/

09/08/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

Upper Deck v Pirozzi 82%

The coordinated actions of Judgment Debtor and Defendant Family amount to nothing short of a conspiracy to commit fraud.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/11/16/upper-deck-v-pirozzi/

16/11/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

ATTClaimAffidavit 57738514 (6) 82%

INSURANCE FRAUD IS A CRIME For your protection, a person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent insurance claim with the intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurer is guilty of a crime and may be subject to fines and confinement in prison.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/05/13/attclaimaffidavit57738514-6/

13/05/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

ATTClaimAffidavit 49190730 (1) 82%

INSURANCE FRAUD IS A CRIME For your protection, a person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent insurance claim with the intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurer is guilty of a crime and may be subject to fines and confinement in prison.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/01/04/attclaimaffidavit-49190730-1/

04/01/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

mat01 82%

Certidão de Ônus/Reipersecutória/Inteiro Teor Rua Cel.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/01/10/mat01/

10/01/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

031124055209 81%

Wenzhong refuted Plaintiffs’ entire fraud theory.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/04/07/031124055209/

07/04/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

ClearPier - Performance One Pager 80%

Rampant Ad Fraud No Transparency Confusing Buying Process Unreliable Data Poor Performance Not Getting Your ROI Our Answer.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/12/18/clearpier-performance-one-pager/

18/12/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

AT&T FRAUD BINDER 80%

I gave a written summary of fraud plus a summary of my conclusion on fraud titled “AT&T FRAUD SUMMARY” b.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/06/23/at-t-fraud-binder/

23/06/2013 www.pdf-archive.com

arsnap analysis 77%

In an effort to meet ill-conceived performance benchmarks set by the Congress, the agency promoted a culture that encouraged fraud and deceit.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/02/24/arsnap-analysis/

24/02/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

14 Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 77%

24 King additionally bases these arguments on a needlessly inflammatory version of 25 the facts, in the hope of painting the Plaintiff’s conduct as fraud in order to avoid 26 being called to account for her tortious behavior.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/08/10/14-response-in-opposition-to-defendant-s-motion-to-dismiss/

10/08/2013 www.pdf-archive.com