Reflections of a fraud investigator

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

First things first. I don’t consider myself a religious man. My Sunday school teacher must have been incompetent or maybe...Just maybe I have been reading too much of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. But I have also immersed myself in the fine religious works of Karen Armstrong.

I am not about to get into preaching and neither is this post has anything to do with the bible or religion for that matter. However I have been thinking about this bible verse ever since the first day I got involved in fraud investigation and the profession of fighting fraud in general. Ever since I started writing reports detailing misuse of company resources and outright fraud by employees I have always wondered, are there levels of inappropriate behavior where as a "normal" (i shall explain later)  human being you should turn a blind eye on when carrying out  investigation. Is  my expectation of ethical conduct reasonable, do I expect of others to hold a higher moral ground than I would if were in their shoes. Should organizations deliberately set levels of tolerable
In most cases when organizations detect fraud and call in investigators, the investigator is tasked to bring out any element of fraud or deviation from the internal regulations of the company that he comes across.

To be continued….