After working in military service, public accounting, corporate finance, and fraud examination, I’ve grown used to chaos—the kind of chaos that requires discipline, documentation, and a deep understanding of how deception works in the real world. But I’ve recently discovered that higher education, particularly in today’s age of online learning and artificial intelligence, is facing its own integrity crisis. And yes, Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) have something important to contribute here.
I have to share some personal reflections—coming from my own experience navigating the academic environment and connecting those experiences back to how fraud examiners can play a critical role in not just legal cases, but in upholding academic honesty as well.
Academic Fraud Isn’t a Hypothetical Anymore
Currently, I serve as an expert witness in a court case. It’s a case riddled with deception, falsified records, and procedural manipulation. As I work alongside attorneys, we’ve had recurring conversations about the growing use of AI-generated evidence and the lack of legal standards for its admissibility.
This concern should hit close to home for educators and academic institutions alike. Just like in court, if you’re going to accuse someone of fraud (or plagiarism), you’d better be prepared to prove it with reliable, defensible evidence. And in the academic world, that “proof” is often being outsourced to platforms like TurnItIn.
The Limits of TurnItIn and the Danger of Over-Reliance
Let’s be clear—TurnItIn is not a silver bullet. It may be a useful tool to flag potential issues, but it cannot, and should not, be treated as conclusive evidence of academic dishonesty.
Imagine trying to fail a student or give them a zero on a major assignment based solely on TurnItIn’s similarity score. If that student challenges the accusation, especially in a legal context, the entire case could unravel. Why? Because TurnItIn does not provide a transparent methodology, its results vary wildly depending on input, and it is not scientifically reproducible in the way courts—and fraud examiners—require.
I’ve personally seen where AI-generated plagiarism detection was deemed insufficient. And frankly, I’m not surprised. In court, I’ve used scientifically accepted methods like Benford’s Law to uncover financial anomalies—but even those tools must be accompanied by corroborating evidence. Judges and juries demand it. Why would we expect less in academic integrity hearings?
The Fraud Examiner’s Perspective: Always Challenge the Finding
As a CFE, my professional mandate is rooted in skepticism. I question everything. I challenge every assumption. I don’t rely on any tool—whether it’s Benford’s Law or an AI model—without additional support. And that’s the mindset higher education needs more of right now.
We’re entering an era where students are increasingly tech-savvy, and cheating is no longer about copying from a neighbor’s paper. It’s sophisticated, AI-assisted, and often undetectable unless faculty are trained to dig deeper and think critically about the evidence in front of them.
Academic integrity investigations need the same rigor as fraud investigations:
- Documented trends
- Multiple data points
- Contextual understanding
- Interviews and behavioral indicators
In other words, educators need to think more like investigators.
The Problem with Online Education and Arm’s Length Learning
One of the most frustrating parts of academic work today—especially in online settings—is how distant we’ve become from our students. When you’re grading dozens of assignments without ever speaking face-to-face, how can you truly know if your student understood the material? How do you detect when something feels off?
This is where the CFE’s instincts matter. The best investigators know when something doesn’t sit right. And they also know that proving it takes more than a “feeling”—it takes documentation, diligence, and sometimes, a confession.
But confessions are rare. And unless you’re willing to dig, you may never find what you’re looking for. This is why I continue to question the effectiveness of online only instruction. The learning model makes it far easier to cheat and far harder to prove when it happens.
Conclusion: Fraud Detection in Academia Requires a Professional Shift
TurnItIn should be viewed less as a “gotcha” tool and more as a deterrent—much like a flashlight on a beat cop. It can scare away the casual cheater, but it won’t catch the serious offenders. For that, you need well-trained investigators and systems rooted in critical thinking, skepticism, and evidence-based action.
Certified Fraud Examiners have a lot to offer in this space. Our training, our courtroom experience, and our insistence on methodological rigor make us well-suited to help academic institutions:
- Build stronger integrity policies
- Train faculty in evidence-based analysis
- Review and audit suspected dishonesty cases
- Promote a culture of professionalism and accountability
Fraud doesn’t stop at the bank or the boardroom—it exists anywhere there’s opportunity and insufficient oversight. The classroom is no exception.
Let’s stop treating AI tools as judge and jury, and start equipping educators to be real investigators. Because in today’s world, that’s what academic integrity demands.
JVFS is committed to the ethical application of fraud detection and forensic analysis across industries—including education. If you’re an academic institution looking to enhance your academic honesty protocols, contact us to learn how CFEs can help.
Janicek Valuation & Forensic Services, PLLC 