Week 2 - You are the fraud investigator on a case and you are certain

At least 3 paragraphs long with 3 peer-reviewed references.

Topic 2 You are the fraud investigator on a case and you are certain the VP of Marketing has embezzled funds. The VP of Marketing has been under suspicion twice before on similar schemes but these suspicions were never proven. Do you think, in this case, it would be acceptable to include evidence from these prior situations in your investigation to ensure an arrest and conviction this time? Would your answer change if the VP of Marketing was convicted on the similar schemes? Why or why not? Be sure to back up your opinions with authoritative sources and applicable laws (including peer reviewed articles from the library, Fraud Examiners Manual, etc