SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 2
SUMMARY TABLE
Test Title
#

Description

Findings

Verify if an
expense exceeded
20% above
approved amount

Use VLOOKUP and IF

function to find expenses
that are 20% above the
approved amount.

There are 5 violations associated with

following employees:
- Jennifer Hill (expenseno 5640619)
- William David (expenseno 5640626)
- Marie Redwood (expenseno 5641104)
- Maria Garcia (expenseno 5641055 &
5641337)

Overlapping trip
dates verification

Use filter-to-filter
Employees name (A-Z)
then filter travel start date
(oldest to newest). Use
the difference formula to
find difference between
travel start day and travel
end day.

We found 2 violations:
- Marie Redwood traveled to
Miami from 8/29/16-9/1/16
which she filed expense for but
then she filed another expense of
her trip she took to Atlanta from
8/30/16-9/3/16
- William Davis traveled to
Charlotte from 4/21/16-4/22/16
which he filed expense for but
then he filed another expense of
her trip she took to Tallahassee
from 4/21/15-4/25/15

Mileage
verification

Compared mileage
expense with cities
mileage. Determined
violations using IF
function

Two individuals submitted mileage

expense that were over cities mileage,
resulting in violations

Determine if an
expense is over
double the

Doubled the calculated

average for airfare, hotel,
and taxi. Determined

Multiple employees submitted expenses

that were over double the average. Total
Violations: 419

average

violations by using the IF

function.

Airfare:155
Hotel: 57
Taxi: 207

Determine if
contradicting
expenses occur in
one trip.

Use VLOOKUP and filter There are many violations mainly

to find trips that have
associate with James Smith spno 1010
contradicting expenses

Trip approval
verification

Use VLOOKUP and

countif to find approvalno
that is duplicated or
unused.

Validate
salesperson

Use VLOOKUP and pivot All employees submitting expenses are

table to verify if the
valid. Spno 1011 and 1012 didn't submit
employees submitted
and expenses
expenses are from
salespersons list.

Verify that
expense dates
align with
approval dates

Use VLOOKUP to find

corresponding expenses
and approval dates and
compare if those dates
align.

Some employees' trips took place years

before approval date:
- Marie Redwood (2 times)
- Susan Lee (1 time)
- Mary Moore (2 times)
- Robert Johnson (1 time)
- James Smith (1 time)
Susan Taylor took a trip that was
approved years before actual expense
date

Verify if a
salesperson often
spends more than
approved amount
(compared to
others)

Use SUM and IF to find

out how many times an
employee spends over the
limit and compare with
others.

All employees except inactive ones

(1011 & 1012) spends more than max
amount about 63 times on average with
a range from 51 to 68. None seems to
overspend more often compared to
others.

10

perdiem
verification

Compute actual perdiem

then use IF to verify if
perdiem reported match
actual perdiem.

1 violation: Susan Lee approvalno

1240064, perdiem should be $250
instead of $400
Some employees started trips in 2015
and ends in 2016 but had perdiem rate

All trips have accompanying approvals.

Approvalno 124500 was used twice
while 124510 wasn't used. This seems to
be caused by a typo on the travel
expenses chart. All trips have
accompanying approval

was from 2015 for the entire trip.

11

---------

---------

--------

12

Are travel dates

Used Vlookup and If
over a weekend or function. Also used
conditional formatting to
a holiday
highlight cell contains the
word Saturday, Sunday
and Holiday

There were 762 trips that were done

during the weekend or the holiday.

13

Numbers of trips
that were
approved by each
manager for each
employee

Used the Pivot table in

excel to find number of
trips approved by each
managers for each
employees.

There was no unusual number of times

sales person were being approved by
any managers. But we did find that
James Smith has been travelling less
than other Sales person.

14

Multiple
employees
traveling to the
same place at the
same time

Used VLOOKUP
function as well as Pivot
table to find the City that
multiple employees were
traveling that the same
time.

There were 105 dates in which more

than one employee traveled to the same
cities. One of the finding was that on
1/17/2015 two employees traveled to
Miami and other two traveled to
Tallahassee.

15

Manager approval
should occur before
the trip commences

VLOOKUP was used to

Total of 713 trips were in violation due
combined needed data
to start date occurring prior to approval
and IF function to identify date
violations

16

Expense should
be submitted after
end of trip

VLOOKUP was used to

Total of 8 expenses were in violation
combined needed data
due to expense submitted prior to end of
and IF function to identify trip
violations

17

Multiple trips
cannot use the
same approval
code.

Conditional Formatting
was used to identify
duplicate approval
numbers.

Two violations resulting in same

approval number used for to different
trips

18

Longest times
between the
approval date and
travel start date

Use VLOOKUP as well

as Subtraction formula to
find the employees who
traveled before the
approval date.

We found that only 588 trips out of 1301

were made after the approval date. For
example Spno 1001 traveled on
1/18/2015 while the approval date was
1/26/2015. And Spno 1006 traveled in
2015 even though the trip was approved
in 2006.

19

Trips those were

just under the
threshold for
detection (15%19%)

Used VLOOKUP and IF

function to find the
expenses that were in
between 15%-19% of the
approval amount

There were eight trips that were taken

just under the threshold of detection. For
example when taking the trip to Orlando
Spno 1005 had total expense of $461.7
while the approval amount was only
$400, $461.7 is larger than 15% of
approval amount but under 19%.

20

Are any duplicate

expense

Conditional Formatting
was used to identify if
expenses were submitted
more than once.

No duplicate expense numbers were

submitted.

21

Verify if max
amount approved
for each
salesperson
exceeds 10% of
average

Create a pivot table to

Approval amounts for all employees are
determine sum of the max within range.
amount approved for each
employee then compare
with others.

22

Finding
employees who
travel to the same
city often

Used VLOOKUP as well

as Pivot table to find each
employees total amount
of trips for each city.

There were no unusual times where

employees traveled to the same city
often. But while doing the test we found
out that only two trips were taken to
Birmingham while Tallahassee was
traveled very often (196 times in total).

23

Verify if hotel
expense per night
exceeding 35%
above average for
particular city

Use Pivot table and IF

function and filter to find
out if an employee
overspends on hotel.

Two employees overspend on hotel:

- Jennifer Hills (2 trips)
- Tom Anderson (1 trip)

SECTION 3
Test 1: Verify if an expense exceeded 20% above approved amount
We found 5 trips that have total expenses exceeded 20% of the maximum amount approved
associated with following Expenseno and Salespersons: Jennifer Hill (5640619), William David
(5640626), Maria Garcia (5641055 & 5641337) and Marie Redwood (5641104).
These finding highly indicate frauds. We noticed that some of the trips spent more than double
the amount approved. Management should investigate associated trips and employees to find out
if frauds were committed.

Steps:

Use SUM function to total the expense of each trip.

Use VLOOKUP to match approvalno with MaxAmount and Employees name for each
trip.
Use IF function to label any trip that the Total is more than 20% of the MaxAmount as
violation.
Filter out violation

Raw findings:

Test 2: Overlapping trip dates verification

We found 2 violations with regards to employees taking overlapping trips, Marie Redwood and
William Davis. These violations indicate fraud potential as employees could be filing expense
reports for trips that are longer than the actual trip length.
Steps:

We filtered the data based on employee name

We added another filter layer based on travel start day
We took the difference of the travel start day of line 2 minus the travel end day of line 1
If the value came back negative there was a violation

Raw findings:
Expense
no.

Approval no.
verification

Travel Start

Travel End

5641681

8/29/2016

9/1/2016

125124

5641690
5640786
5640790

8/30/2016
4/21/2015
4/21/2015

9/3/2016
4/22/2015
4/25/2015

125137
124234
124240

salespersons'
names
Marie
Redwood
Marie
Redwood
William Davis
William Davis

Destination
Miami
Atlanta
Charlotte
Tallahassee

Test 3: Mileage submitted and distance between cities match.

violation
violation

When checking if any mileage submitted was over the calculated distance located in the cities
table, two violations came up.
A trip to Miami, according to the cities mileage data, should have totaled 280 miles. Yet, Marie
Redwood submitted mileage for Miami that totaled 372.6, resulting in a violation of 92.6 mile.
Mileage for a trip taken to Jacksonville should have totaled 203. Yet, Susan Lee submitted
mileage to Jacksonville that totaled 226.8, resulting in a violation of 23.8 miles.
All other mileage submitted fell below the approved destination city mileage. With that being
said, further investigation is needed to determine why Marie Redwood and Susan Lee went over
the approved mileage.
Steps:
-

Used VLOOKUP to combined needed mileage information in the cities tab with the
submitted mileage from each employee.
o =VLOOKUP(Sheet2!C464,Cities!$A$1:$B$9,2,FALSE)
= IF function was used to determine violations
o =IF(B464>D464,"VIOLATION",".")
If mileage submitted is greater than distance, VIOLATION

Raw Findings
Approvalno
124507
124500

Mileage
372.6
226.8

Destination
Miami
Jacksonville

Distance
280
203

OVER VIOLATION
VIOLATION
VIOLATION

salespersons' names
Marie Redwood
Susan Lee

Test 4: Test for expenses that were over the double average. Hotel, airfare, taxi
Steps:
- Average was calculated for airfare, hotel and taxi by using = Average function. Each
average was then multiplied by 2 in order to test whether any expense was over double
the average.
- Used the =IF function for each to then determine those that fell within VIOLATION
range.
o Any expenses that were greater than the double the average showed as violation.
- Conditional Formatting was then used to highlight the violations in red in order to
analyze data in a clearer format.
o Conditional formatting Highlight Cell Rules Text that Contains
VIOLATION highlight red
Test 5: Determine if contradicting expenses occur in one trip.
We found that several trips have contradicting expenses such as AirFare and Milage, Milage and
Taxi, as well as CarRental and Taxi. Upon further inspection, we noticed those contradicting

expenses mainly associate with James Smith. Employee Susan Lee and Maria Garcia violate this
test once and Marie Redwood violates three times.
These findings highly indicate reimburse frauds. It is impossible to have these contradicting
expenses occur in one trips. These employees either spent money on unnecessary services or
falsely claimed fake expense to get reimbursement.
Steps:
Raw findings:

Test 6: Trip approval verification

We found that all trips have valid accompanying approvals. However, approval number 124500
was used twice while approval number 124510 was not used.
Upon further inspection, it seems to be a typing mistake rather than fraud. Expense number
5641067 that was submitted on 10/04/2015 should have corresponding approval number 124510
instead of 124500.
Steps:

Use VLOOKUP function determine if approvalno in the travel_expenses sheet are valid
using data from the approvals sheet
Use VLOOKUP function to determine if any of the valid approvalno in the approvals
sheet is not on the travel_expenses sheet. Filter out #N/A
Use COUNTIF function to determine if an approvalno in the travel_expenses sheet
duplicated. Filter out TRUE

Raw findings:

Test 7: Validate salesperson

We found that all employees that submitted expenses reimbursement are valid. However,
Thomas Martin (spno 1011) and Charles Jackson (spno 1012) neither submit any reimbursement
nor took any trip.
It seems like both Martin and Jackson have been inactive. These two employees should be taken
out of the approved salespersons list.
Steps:
Use VLOOKUP function to match spno in the approvals chart with salespersons names
from the Salespersons sheet.
Use VLOOKUP function to match the newly generated salespersons names and spno to
corresponding approvalno in the travel_expenses chart.
Generate a pivot table with salespersons name and spno as rows. Choose count of
expenseno and count of approvalno as values (just for more insights).
Compare result from the pivot table with the Salespersons sheet.
Raw findings:

Test 8: Verify that expense dates align with approval dates

We found that seven trips occurred/expensed submitted years before approval date (associate
with Marie Redwood, Susan Lee, Mary Moore, Robert Johnson, and James Smith). Also, one
trip occurred years after approval date (associate with Susan Taylor).
These findings highly indicate expense reimbursement frauds and need to be investigated
immediately. It is against the policy that a trip is taken without approvals. Trips that are taken
long after approval date usually indicates that someone is using cancelled trips approval
numbers to claim false reimbursement.
Steps:
Use VLOOKUP function to pull approval date from approvals sheet to corresponding
approvalno in travel_expenses sheet.
Change the cell format back to date.
Subtract approval date from expense date.
Filter out negative values and usual values.
Raw findings:

Test 9: Verify if a salesperson often spends more than approved amount (compared to
others)
We found that all employees overspend about 63 times on average, ranging from 51 to 68 times.
None of them seems to overspend more often than another.
There is no indication of frauds. However, the company may need to tighten up its policy to
make sure employees do not spends more than the maximum amount approved so often.
Steps:
SUM the total expense of each trip.
Use VLOOKUP function to look for maximum amount and employees names in the
approvals sheet based on approvalno
Use IF to show names the employees that spent more than maximum amount on a new
column called Overspending Employees for all the trips.
Use pivot table to count how many times a name appears in the overspending column.
Filter out blank value from the table.
Raw findings:

Test 10: Per Diem verification

We found one per diem violation (Approvalno 124064, Susan Lee). Also, there are several trips
that started on 2015 and ended in 2016 that used per diem rate of 2015 for the entire trips.
The per diem violation may or may not be a fraud. Considering the numbers of trips that Ms. Lee
took, it might be a mistake as there is only one violation. However, the company should be
cautious and check Ms. Lees reimbursement claims carefully in the future for possible
frauds. Also, we have adjusted per diem amount for trips that started on 2015 and ended on
2016. The company may want to reimburse those associated employees the difference.
Steps:
Subtract TravelStart from TravelEnd from data on travel_expenses sheet.
Input per diem rate based on year traveled. Leave out the trips that started in 2015 but
ended in 2016.
Compute correct per diem amount based on correct rate for each year.
Compute per diem for trips that started on 2015 and ended on 2016 manually.
Use IF function to verify per diem reported match with correct per diem. If not, label
potential violation.
Filter out potential violation to examine each case.

Raw findings:
Blue highlighted cells are manually computed perdiem rate based on TravelStart and TravelEnd.
Yellow highlighted cell indicates Perdiem violation.

Test 11

Test 12: Are travel dates over a weekend or a holiday

We found many violations after using conditional formatting to highlight violation dates
including weekends and holidays. This is not an indicator of fraud due to the volume of
employees that travel on weekends.
Steps:
We used a formula to calculate total travel days (=IF(N2<$E2,N2+1,"."))
We input all weekends and holiday dates
Used Vlookup to find violation dates
(=IF(ISERROR(VLOOKUP(N2,$AA$1:$AB$400,2,FALSE)),".",VLOOKUP(N2,$AA$
1:$AB$400,2,FALSE)))
We used conditional formatting to highlight violations (travel during weekends and
holidays)
Raw Findings:
TravelStart
1/10/2015
1/11/2015
1/7/2015

TravelEnd
1/12/2015
1/13/2015
1/11/2015

1/9/2015
1/16/2015
1/11/2015

1/13/2015
1/17/2015
1/15/2015

1
Saturday
Sunday
.

Sunday
.
.

2
.
.
.

4
.
.
Saturday

5
.
.
Sunday

.
.
.

.
.
Sunday

Saturday
saturday
.

Sunday
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Sales Person
Jennifer Hill
Maria Garcia
Mary Moore
Robert
Johnson
Maria Garcia
Marie

1/17/2015
1/9/2015
1/13/2015
1/17/2015
1/17/2015
1/18/2015
1/17/2015

1/18/2015
1/13/2015
1/17/2015
1/20/2015
1/20/2015
1/20/2015
1/20/2015

saturday
.
.
saturday
saturday
sunday
saturday

sunday
Saturday
.
sunday
sunday
.
sunday

.
Sunday
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
saturday
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1/17/2015
1/21/2015
1/18/2015
1/22/2015

1/22/2015
1/25/2015
1/23/2015
1/26/2015

saturday
.
sunday
.

sunday
.
.
.

.
.
.
saturday

.
saturday
.
sunday

.
sunday
.
.

.
.
.
.

1/22/2015
1/19/2015
1/25/2015
1/21/2015
1/23/2015
1/24/2015
1/29/2015

1/25/2015
1/24/2015
1/27/2015
1/26/2015
1/25/2015
1/29/2015
1/31/2015

.
.
sunday
.
.
saturday
.

.
.
.
.
saturday
sunday
.

saturday
.
.
.
sunday
.
saturday

sunday
.
.
saturday
.
.
.

.
.
.
sunday
.
.
.

.
saturday
.
.
.
.
.

1/23/2015

1/27/2015

saturday

sunday

1/28/2015
1/28/2015
1/30/2015

1/31/2015
2/2/2015
1/31/2015

.
.
.

.
.
saturday

.
.
.

saturday
saturday
.

.
sunday
.

.
.
.

2/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/28/2015

2/3/2015
2/3/2015
2/2/2015

sunday
sunday
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
saturday

.
.
sunday

.
.
.

1/29/2015

1/31/2015

saturday

2/1/2015
1/30/2015
1/30/2015
2/4/2015
1/31/2015
2/6/2015

2/4/2015
2/3/2015
2/3/2015
2/9/2015
2/4/2015
2/10/2015

sunday
.
.
.
saturday
.

.
saturday
saturday
.
sunday
saturday

.
sunday
sunday
.
.
sunday

.
.
.
saturday
.
.

.
.
.
sunday
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

2/6/2015
2/7/2015
2/8/2015
2/3/2015
2/6/2015

2/7/2015
2/8/2015
2/9/2015
2/8/2015
2/7/2015

.
saturday
sunday
.
.

saturday
sunday
.
.
saturday

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
saturday
.

.
.
.
sunday
.

2/7/2015
2/6/2015
2/13/2015
2/12/2015

2/10/2015
2/9/2015
2/14/2015
2/15/2015

saturday
.
.
.

sunday
saturday
saturday
.

.
sunday
.
saturday

.
.
.
sunday

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

Redwood
Robert
Johnson
William Davis
Susan Taylor
Jennifer Hill
William Davis
Tom Anderson
Mary Moore
Marie
Redwood
Maria Garcia
Susan Lee
Mary Moore
Robert
Johnson
Susan Taylor
Susan Taylor
William Davis
Jennifer Hill
Tom Anderson
James Smith
Marie
Redwood
Robert
Johnson
Jennifer Hill
Maria Garcia
Marie
Redwood
Maria Garcia
Susan Taylor
Marie
Redwood
Robert
Johnson
William Davis
Mary Moore
William Davis
Tom Anderson
Susan Taylor
Marie
Redwood
Susan Lee
Tom Anderson
James Smith
Jennifer Hill
Robert
Johnson
Mary Moore
Jennifer Hill
Tom Anderson

2/11/2015
2/14/2015
2/13/2015

2/14/2015
2/15/2015
2/16/2015

.
saturday
.

.
sunday
saturday

.
.
sunday

saturday
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

2/14/2015
2/12/2015
2/14/2015
2/13/2015

2/16/2015
2/14/2015
2/16/2015
2/17/2015

saturday
.
saturday
.

sunday
.
sunday
saturday

.
saturday
.
sunday

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

2/20/2015

2/23/2015

saturday

sunday

2/17/2015
2/20/2015
2/21/2015
2/17/2015
2/20/2015
2/21/2015
2/20/2015
2/21/2015
2/26/2015
2/28/2015
2/20/2015
2/24/2015
2/25/2015
2/25/2015
2/28/2015
3/1/2015
3/4/2015

2/22/2015
2/25/2015
2/26/2015
2/21/2015
2/22/2015
2/22/2015
2/25/2015
2/23/2015
2/28/2015
3/2/2015
2/25/2015
2/28/2015
2/28/2015
3/1/2015
3/2/2015
3/5/2015
3/7/2015

.
.
saturday
.
.
saturday
.
saturday
.
saturday
.
.
.
.
saturday
sunday
.

.
saturday
sunday
.
saturday
sunday
saturday
sunday
.
sunday
saturday
.
.
.
sunday
.
.

.
sunday
.
.
sunday
.
sunday
.
saturday
.
sunday
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
saturday
saturday
.
.
saturday

saturday
.
.
saturday
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
saturday
.
sunday
.
.
.

sunday
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2/26/2015

3/3/2015

saturday

sunday

2/25/2015

3/2/2015

saturday

sunday

3/6/2015
3/6/2015
3/4/2015
3/1/2015
3/3/2015

3/7/2015
3/8/2015
3/9/2015
3/5/2015
3/7/2015

.
.
.
sunday
.

saturday
saturday
.
.
.

.
sunday
.
.
.

.
.
saturday
.
.

.
.
sunday
.
saturday

.
.
.
.
.

3/3/2015
3/6/2015
3/6/2015
3/7/2015
3/4/2015
3/10/2015
3/11/2015

3/7/2015
3/9/2015
3/8/2015
3/9/2015
3/9/2015
3/14/2015
3/14/2015

.
.
.
saturday
.
.
.

.
saturday
saturday
sunday
.
.
.

.
sunday
sunday
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
saturday
.
saturday

saturday
.
.
.
sunday
saturday
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3/8/2015
3/13/2015
3/15/2015
3/11/2015

3/11/2015
3/15/2015
3/18/2015
3/16/2015

sunday
.
sunday
.

.
saturday
.
.

.
sunday
.
.

.
.
.
saturday

.
.
.
sunday

.
.
.
.

Marie
Redwood
James Smith
Mary Moore
Robert
Johnson
William Davis
Maria Garcia
Susan Taylor
Robert
Johnson
Marie
Redwood
William Davis
Susan Taylor
Susan Lee
Tom Anderson
Mary Moore
Jennifer Hill
Maria Garcia
Susan Lee
William Davis
James Smith
Tom Anderson
Maria Garcia
Mary Moore
James Smith
Susan Taylor
Tom Anderson
Marie
Redwood
Robert
Johnson
Marie
Redwood
James Smith
Maria Garcia
Jennifer Hill
William Davis
Robert
Johnson
Susan Taylor
Jennifer Hill
Mary Moore
Susan Lee
Susan Taylor
Jennifer Hill
Marie
Redwood
James Smith
William Davis
Robert

3/12/2015

3/17/2015

saturday

sunday

3/13/2015
3/14/2015
3/15/2015
3/20/2015
3/21/2015
3/18/2015

3/17/2015
3/18/2015
3/19/2015
3/23/2015
3/24/2015
3/22/2015

.
saturday
sunday
.
saturday
.

saturday
sunday
.
saturday
sunday
.

sunday
.
.
sunday
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
saturday

.
.
.
.
.
sunday

.
.
.
.
.
.

3/19/2015
3/22/2015
3/26/2015

3/23/2015
3/25/2015
3/29/2015

.
sunday
.

.
.
.

saturday
.
saturday

sunday
.
sunday

.
.
.

.
.
.

3/20/2015
3/21/2015

3/25/2015
3/24/2015

.
saturday

saturday
sunday

sunday
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

Johnson
Maria Garcia
Marie
Redwood
Tom Anderson
Susan Lee
Susan Lee
William Davis
Jennifer Hill
Robert
Johnson
Tom Anderson
Tom Anderson
Marie
Redwood
Maria Garcia

Test 13: Numbers of trips that were approved by each manager for each employee
We found that the total amount of trips that was taken by all employees was 1301. 129, 130,
4141, 130, 125, 133, 134, 136, 131 and 112 is total amount of trips taken by Spno 1001, 1002,
1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009 and 1010 respectively. 325, 317, 328 and 331 is the
number of trips that was approved by managers 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively.
We do not think it is a strong indicator of fraud because there was no unusual number of times
salesperson being approved by any/same manager because the numbers were consistent. Spno
(James Smith) 1010 was travelling less than other Sales person, he only took 112 trips; and
maybe that is something to be looked at.
Steps:
Select the whole approval sheet Insert Pivot table (New Worksheet)
Drag approval number to values but make sure it is counting not summing
Drag Spno (Salesperson number) to columns
Drag managerno to row
This will give us the manager number with sales person number and will count how many times
each manager have approved each sales person.
Raw findings:

Test 14: Multiple employees traveling to the same place at the same time
We found 105 dates in which more than one employee traveled to the same cities.
We found that multiple employees traveled to the same location with the same start date, totaling
105 times. We do not think it is a strong indicator of fraud because cities like Miami and Atlanta
are big where a company can have multiple clients so multiple employees could be needed at the
same time.
Steps:
On Travel expense sheet use VLOOKUP to add City name, Spno and Employees name.
VLOOKUP (Lookup_value, Table_array, Col_index, [range_lookup]
For city use the formula =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,5,FALSE)
For Spno use the formula =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,4,FALSE)
For Employees name use the formula
=VLOOKUP(M2,Salespersons!$A$1:$B$13,2,FALSE)
Then Select the whole Travel Expense Sheet Insert Pivot table (New Worksheet)
Drag Travel Start and Spno to Rows
Drag City to Columns
Drag Count of employees to values
This will give us date with each Spno and Citys name while counting how many employees
traveled to that City on the same date. Now select row B to I, select conditional formatting
highlight cell rules greater than 1. There were numbers of violations.
Raw findings:
1. On 1/17/2015 two employees (1005 and 1008) traveled to Miami and two employees (1003
and 1005) traveled to Tallahassee.
2. On 1/21/2015 three employees (1002, 1007 and 1008) traveled to Miami.
3. On 1/30/2015 two employees (1003 and 1007) traveled to Charlotte.
4. On 2/6/2015 two employees (1003 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.
5. On 2/12/2015 two employees (1002 and 1004) traveled to Atlanta.
6. On 2/17/2015 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Tallahassee.
7. On 3/6/2015 two employees (1006 and 1008) traveled to Charlotte and two employees (1009
and 1010) traveled to Mobile.
8. On 3/24/2015 two employees (1005 and 1006) traveled to Miami.
9. On 3/35/2015 three employees (1001, 1007 and 1010) traveled to Orlando.
10. On 3/28/2015 two employees (1001 and 1002) traveled to Mobile.
11. On 4/21/2015 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Tallahassee.
12. On 4/29/2015 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Orlando.
13. On 5/4/2015 two employees (1007 and 1009) traveled to Tallahassee.
14. On 5/11/2015 two employees (1005 and 1010) traveled to Atlanta.
15. On 5/14/2015 two employees (1001 and 1006) traveled to Tallahassee.
16. On 5/18/2015 two employees (1004 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.
17. On 5/26/2015 two employees (1002 and 1004) traveled to Miami.
18. On 6/3/2015 two employees (1004 and 1008) traveled to Tallahassee.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.

On 6/7/2015 two employees (1004 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.

On 6/12/2015 three employees (1003, 1009 and 1010) traveled to Mobile.
On 6/24/2015 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Mobile.
On 6/28/2015 two employees (1008 and 1010) traveled to Tallahassee.
On 6/29/2015 two employees (1001 and 1003) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 7/3/2015 two employees (1003 and 1008) traveled to Orlando.
On 7/4/2015 two employees (1002 NS 1009) traveled to Mobile.
On 7/5/2015 two employees (1006 and 1008) traveled to Atlanta.
On 7/17/2015 three employees (1004, 1007 and 1010) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 7/20/2015 two employees (1001 and 1006) traveled to Charlotte.
On 7/26/2015 two employees (1005 and 1007) traveled to Atlanta.
On 7/30/2015 two employees (1009 and 1010) traveled to Tallahassee.
On 8/6/2015 two employees (1003 and 1005) traveled to Mobile.
On 8/13/2015 two employees (1001 and 1004) traveled to Mobile.
On 8/23/2015 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Atlanta.
On 8/26/2015 two employees (1004 and 1007) traveled to Mobile.
On 9/8/2015 three employees (1007, 1009 and 1010) traveled to Miami.
On 9/14/2015 two employees (1001 and 1004) traveled to Mobile.
On 9/24/2015 two employees (1001 and 1003) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 10/01/2015 two employees (1003 and 1006) traveled to Tallahassee.
On 10/8/2015 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Atlanta.
On 10/16/2015 two employees (1007 and 1008) traveled to Miami.
On 10/20/2015 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 10/24/2015 two employees (1003 and 1004) traveled to Tallahassee.
On 11/12/2015 two employees (1005 and 1006) traveled to Mobile.
On 11/21/2015 three employees (1004, 1005 and 1009) traveled to Miami.
On 11/29/2015 three employees (1006, 1007 and 1010) traveled to Miami.
On 12/7/2015 three employees (1004, 1005 and 1009) traveled to Miami.
On 12/13/2015 two employees (1001 and 1005) traveled to Charlotte.
On 12/16/2015 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Miami.
On 12/23/2015 two employees (1005 and 1010) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 1/8/2016 two employees (1004 and 1009) traveled to Orlando.
On 1/21/2016 two employees (1006 and 1008) traveled to Atlanta.
On 1/14/2016 two employees (1004 and 1007) traveled to Orlando.
On 1/17/2016 two employees (1002 and 1010) traveled to Tallahassee.
On 1/21/2016 two employees (1006 and 1008) traveled to Mobile.
On 2/4/2016 two employees (1003 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 2/8/2016 two employees (1005 and 1008) traveled to Charlotte.
On 2/13/2016 two employees (1004 and 1005) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 2/21/2016 three employees (1007, 1008 and 1009) traveled to Atlanta.
On 3/2/2016 two employees (1001 and 1003) traveled to Jacksonville.
On 3/14/2016 two employees (1005 and 1010) traveled to Atlanta.
On 3/18/2016 two employees (1006 and 1009) traveled to Miami.
On 3/28/2016 two employees (1002 and 1008) traveled to Atlanta.
On 3/29/2016 two employees (1003 and 1009) traveled to Miami.
On 4/2/2016 two employees (1002 and 1010) traveled to Miami.

65. On 4/8/2016 two employees (1002 and 1006) traveled to Atlanta.

66. On 4/13/2016 two employees (1004 and 1006) traveled to Mobile.
67. On 4/19/2016 three employees (1002, 1004 and 1008) traveled to Mobile.
68. On 4/23/2016 two employees (1001 and 1005) traveled to Mobile.
69. On 4/26/2016 two employees (1003 and 1009) traveled to Mobile.
70. On 5/2/2016 two employees (1002 and 1006) traveled to Charlotte.
71. On 5/6/2016 two employees (1003 and 1009) traveled to Mobile.
72. On 5/10/2016 two employees (1006 and 1007) traveled to Orlando.
73. On 5/15/2016 two employees (1002 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.
74. On 5/17/2015 two employees (1001 and 1008) traveled to Orlando.
75. On 5/21/2016 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Jacksonville.
76. On 5/22/2016 two employees (1004 and 1006) traveled to Jacksonville.
77. On 5/30/2016 two employees (1002 and 1007) traveled to Mobile.
78. On 6/10/2016 two employees (1003 and 1006) traveled to Charlotte and (1004 and 1005)
traveled to Jacksonville.
79. On 6/16/2016 two employees (1001 and 1010) traveled to Tallahassee.
80. On 6/24/2016 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Jacksonville.
81. On 6/27/2016 two employees (1004 and 1007) traveled to Tallahassee.
82. On 7/13/2016 two employees (1005 and 1009) traveled to Orlando.
83. On 7/21/2016 two employees (1005 and 1008) traveled to Atlanta.
84. On 7/22/2016 two employees (1002 and 1009) traveled to Mobile.
85. On 8/8/2016 two employees (1008 and 1009) traveled to Charlotte.
86. On 8/16/2016 two employees (1003 and 1008) traveled to Atlanta.
87. On 8/22/2016 two employees (1003 and 1008) traveled to Miami.
88. On 8/30/2016 two employees (1001 and 1009) traveled to Atlanta.
89. On 9/6/2016 two employees (1005 and 1010) traveled to Charlotte.
90. On 9/9/2016 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Orlando.
91. On 9/11/2016 two employees (1008 and 1009) traveled to Charlotte.
92. On 9/22/2016 two employees (1002 and 1003) traveled to Charlotte.
93. On 9/27/2016 two employees (1001 and 1010) traveled to Atlanta.
94. On 10/01/2016 two employees (1005 and 1007) traveled to Mobile.
95. On 10/6/2016 two employees (1008 and 1009) traveled to Atlanta.
96. On 9/13/2016 three employees (1002, 1003 and 1009) traveled to Miami.
97. On 10/14/2016 two employees (1001 and 1007) traveled to Mobile.
98. On 10/20/2016 two employees (1008 and 1010) traveled to Tallahassee.
99. On 10/29/2016 two employees (1003 and 1006) traveled to Orlando.
100. On 11/5/2016 two employees (1003 and 1010) traveled to Miami.
There were 5 additionally dates where more than one employee traveled to the same city on the
same start date.

Test 15: Manager Approval should occur before the trip commences
We found that multiple employees, on multiple occasions, started their trips before the approvals
were given. A total of 713 trips were started on a date prior to approval.

All employees have committed the violation and numerous occasion, so it seems to be that
management should be playing closer attention to start dates and inform the sales reps what the
correct protocol is. Being that this has been a reoccurring violations, among various sales reps,
no corrective action has been taken.
Steps:
We found the violations by using the VLOOKUP and IF function
First the Expense data was copied into a new worksheet. We used VLOOKUP to get the
approval date and expense information on the same sheet.
= VLOOKUP (Lookup_Value, Table_array, Col_Index, [range_lookup])
= VLOOKUP (C2, approvals!$A$1:$G$1302,2,FALSE)
Lookup_value - C2: Approval # in new sheet
Table_array - approvals!$A$1:$G$1302
Approval sheet: highlight all and hit F4 (absolute reference). This lets excel know
to look for the approval number in the entire approval sheet
Col_Index: 2 (approval date)
Colum is the information you want transferred to the sheet you are working on
Range lookup FALSE
False provides exact answers.
Once all the information needed is in the same sheet we used the = IF function to
determine if start date occurred before the approval date.
= IF: if condition is met, and returns one value if false and another if true
= IF (logical_test, [value if true], [value if flase])
=IF (I2>D2,VIOLATION,.)
Logical_Test: I2 > D2
If approval date is greater than start date that means that the trip occurred prior to
getting authorization
Value if true: VIOLATION
Approvals that occurred on a date after start date will show VIOLATION
Value if False: .
Data returned with . Have no violated the approval prior start date protocol.
Using the filter function, we were able to filter the data of interest
(VIOLATIONS) to then sort the given information based on employee names and
approval dates.
Raw findings:
TravelStart TravelEnd salespersons'
names

Approval
Date

1/5/2015
1/14/2015
1/21/2015
1/26/2015
2/3/2015

1/8/2015
1/19/2015
1/22/2015
1/29/2015
2/9/2015

1/9/2015
1/15/2015
1/23/2015
1/28/2015
2/8/2015

James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith

Approval
after
start
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation

2/14/2015
2/20/2015
3/13/2015
3/16/2015
3/25/2015
4/7/2015
4/17/2015
4/26/2015
5/3/2015
5/11/2015
6/12/2015
8/2/2015
8/7/2015
8/17/2015
8/26/2015
9/8/2015
9/16/2015
9/24/2015
10/4/2015
10/10/2015
10/24/2015
11/1/2015
11/4/2015
11/23/2015
11/29/2015
12/7/2015
12/14/2015
12/26/2015
12/28/2015
1/5/2016
1/17/2016
1/30/2016
2/16/2016
2/29/2016
3/9/2016
3/18/2016
3/27/2016
4/6/2016
4/13/2016
4/26/2016
5/2/2016
5/12/2016
6/1/2016
6/16/2016
6/21/2016

2/15/2015
2/25/2015
3/15/2015
3/19/2015
3/27/2015
4/11/2015
4/18/2015
4/28/2015
5/7/2015
5/15/2015
6/16/2015
8/6/2015
8/12/2015
8/22/2015
8/29/2015
9/11/2015
9/19/2015
9/28/2015
10/9/2015
10/14/2015
10/28/2015
11/2/2015
11/5/2015
11/27/2015
12/1/2015
12/12/2015
12/19/2015
12/27/2015
1/2/2016
1/9/2016
1/20/2016
2/4/2016
2/20/2016
3/5/2016
3/10/2016
3/23/2016
3/31/2016
4/10/2016
4/16/2016
4/28/2016
5/3/2016
5/15/2016
6/5/2016
6/17/2016
6/22/2016

James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith

2/16/2015
3/2/2015
3/18/2015
3/20/2015
3/29/2015
4/10/2015
4/20/2015
4/28/2015
5/5/2015
5/16/2015
6/15/2015
8/8/2015
8/16/2015
8/23/2015
8/31/2015
9/13/2015
9/20/2015
9/30/2015
10/14/2015
10/17/2015
10/27/2015
11/5/2015
11/5/2015
11/24/2015
12/1/2015
12/15/2015
12/17/2015
12/28/2015
1/3/2016
1/8/2016
1/18/2016
2/6/2016
2/19/2016
3/7/2016
3/10/2016
3/24/2016
4/1/2016
4/8/2016
4/14/2016
4/27/2016
5/3/2016
5/14/2016
6/5/2016
6/18/2016
6/23/2016

violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation

6/28/2016
7/4/2016
7/20/2016
8/12/2016
8/20/2016
9/11/2016
9/27/2016
10/7/2016
10/15/2016
10/20/2016
10/28/2016
11/5/2016
11/16/2016
11/29/2016
11/24/2016
12/6/2016
12/11/2016
12/26/2016
1/10/2015
1/13/2015
1/21/2015
1/23/2015
1/28/2015
2/6/2015
2/20/2015
3/1/2015
3/6/2015
3/27/2015
4/8/2015
4/13/2015
4/22/2015
4/27/2015
5/7/2015
5/10/2015
5/24/2015
6/3/2015
6/7/2015
6/13/2015
6/19/2015
6/25/2015
7/3/2015
7/5/2015
7/9/2015
7/15/2015
7/22/2015

6/30/2016
7/8/2016
7/24/2016
8/17/2016
8/25/2016
9/15/2016
10/2/2016
10/12/2016
10/18/2016
10/24/2016
10/30/2016
11/9/2016
11/19/2016
12/4/2016
11/28/2016
12/8/2016
12/15/2016
12/31/2016
1/12/2015
1/14/2015
1/22/2015
1/25/2015
2/2/2015
2/7/2015
2/25/2015
3/5/2015
3/8/2015
3/28/2015
4/9/2015
4/16/2015
4/23/2015
4/29/2015
5/9/2015
5/13/2015
5/28/2015
6/5/2015
6/12/2015
6/17/2015
6/24/2015
6/27/2015
7/4/2015
7/7/2015
7/14/2015
7/18/2015
7/26/2015

James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
James Smith
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill

7/1/2016
7/10/2016
7/22/2016
8/22/2016
8/23/2016
9/19/2016
10/2/2016
10/12/2016
10/17/2016
10/22/2016
10/29/2016
11/11/2016
11/18/2016
12/1/2016
12/1/2016
12/7/2016
12/16/2016
12/28/2016
1/11/2015
1/15/2015
1/22/2015
1/28/2015
1/31/2015
2/10/2015
2/25/2015
3/4/2015
3/8/2015
3/28/2015
4/12/2015
4/16/2015
4/23/2015
4/29/2015
5/9/2015
5/16/2015
5/30/2015
6/4/2015
6/15/2015
6/18/2015
6/22/2015
6/28/2015
7/9/2015
7/9/2015
7/19/2015
7/21/2015
7/27/2015

violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation
violation

7/27/2015
8/12/2015
8/15/2015
8/22/2015
9/7/2015

7/28/2015
8/14/2015
8/19/2015
8/26/2015
9/9/2015

Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill
Jennifer Hill

7/28/2015
8/14/2015
8/16/2015
8/30/2015
9/9/2015

violation
violation
violation
violation
violation

There are 613 more violations.

Test 16: Expense should be submitted after end of trip
We found that 8 expenses were submitted prior to end of trip. All of the expenses dates that
showed as violation have a date of 2009 yet the trips were done at the end of 2016. This could be
an entry error or employee error. They could have mistakenly provided the old expense number
for a trip or have deliberately used the wrong number to get reimbursed at a greater amount or
for a trip not taken.
Steps:
Used the = IF function to find out of any violations occurred in regards to date of
submitting expense date and travel end date.
=IF(D2>B2,"VIOLATION",".")
If Travel End date is greater than (older) Expense date, violation has occurred.
Data that resulted in violations means that the date in which the expense was submitted
occurred prior to the end of the trip.
Raw findings:

Test 17: Multiple trips cannot use the same approval code.
We found that one employee, Susan Lee, used approval number 124500 for two different trips to
Jacksonville. One trip started on 9/18/2015 and ended 9/22/2015. The second trip to Jacksonville
has a start date 9/24/2019 and end date 9/27/2015. Being that no two trips can have the same
approval number, further investigation is required. Employee could be attempting to get
reimbursement for a trip that was not approved to begin with.

Steps:

Copied needed date onto another worksheet.

First you must highlight the desired column where you want excel to look for the
duplicated values, Approvalno. Under the HOME tab, CONDITIONAL FORMATING,
HIGHLIGHT CELL RULES, DUPLICATED VALUES
Any duplicated values under the selected column would be returned with light red fill and
dark red text.

Raw findings:

Test 18: Longest times between the approval date and travel start date
We found the 5 longest times between the approval date and travel start date. We also found that
multiple employees started their trips before the trip was approved. Out of 1301 trips only 588
trips were made after the approval date (some trips were made in the same day as the approval
date).
We did not think it as a strong indicator of fraud since 713 trips were made before the approval
date and because of that we think that employees are not aware of the fact that their trip needs to
be approved before they actually take the trip. This can be the result of poor management by the
managers because the managers were not aware that employees were taking the trips before it
has been approved. Employees may not be informed so they might think that this is acceptable.
Steps:
Go to travel expense sheet to add approval date and employees number (Spno) in that
sheet using Vlookup.
VLOOKUP (Lookup_value, Table_array, Col_index, [range_lookup]
To add approval date = VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,2,FALSE), this will
add approval date to travel expense sheet.
To add Spno =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,4,FALSE)
We do not need expenses through F to K so we can delete those rows.
So find the time difference between the approval date and travel start date create a
formula
=Travel start date (D2) approval date (F2)
This will give us all the time difference for all the travel dates, but we only the five longest times
so we can filter and only use 2927, 2915, 8 (-8 can be used instead of +8), -9, -10. We can sort it
by ascending to descending.
Raw findings:

Five longest times between the approval and travel start date with the employees number are as
follows:

Test 19: Trips those were just under the threshold for detection (15%-19%)
We found 8 trips that were taken just under the threshold of detection (15-19%) above the
approved amount. We found 5 employees who went over the approval amount but under the
threshold of detection.
We do not think it is a strong indicator as a fraud because as per company policy approval
[amount] is allowed to exceed as long as employees can produce receipts to verify the
expenses
Steps:
Go to Travel expense sheet and add all the expenses (F through K) using SUM function.
=SUM(F2-K2) copy this formula for all trips (row N)
Add approval amount as well as Spno and city to Travel expense sheet using Vlookup
VLOOKUP (Lookup_value, Table_array, Col_index, [range_lookup]
To add approval amount =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,6,FALSE)
row M
To add Spno =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,4,FALSE)
To add city =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,5,FALSE)
Make sure there is approval amount, Spno and city for all the trips.

Add 15% threshold creating your own formula (row N):

=(M148*$N$1)+M148 N1=15%
Add 19% threshold creating your own formula (row O):
=(M148*$O$1)+M148 O1=19%
Now use the IF function to find the trips that were just under the threshold of detection
=IF(AND(L2>=N2, L2<=O2), "under the threshold", ".")

Raw findings:

Test 20: Are any duplicated expenses submitted

No expense numbers came up as duplicates.
Excel steps:
Copied needed date onto another worksheet.
First you must highlight the desired column where you want excel to look for the
duplicated values, Expenseno. Under the HOME tab, CONDITIONAL FORMATING,
HIGHLIGHT CELL RULES, DUPLICATED VALUES
Any duplicated values under the selected column would be returned with light red fill and
dark red text. None came back as duplicate numbers.
Raw findings:
Not available since there is no violation.

Test 21: Verify if max amount approved for each salesperson exceeds 10% of average
We found that none of the employees maximum amounts exceeded the average more than 10%.
This indicates that there is no collusion between the managers approving the maximum amount
and the employees taking the trips.
Steps:
Use VLOOKUP function to look for employees names that correspond with each
approvalno.

Create a pivot table with salespersons names as row and sum of MaxAmount as values
so that it shows the maximum amount approved for each salesperson.
Use AVERAGE function to compute the average max amount each salesperson was
approved.
Use IF function to verify if the totaled maximum amount of each salesperson exceeding
10% of the average.

Raw findings:

Test 22: Finding employees who travel to the same city often
We found out the total number of trips taken to each city by each employee. 174, 2, 188, 168,
186, 195, 192, 196 times trips were taken to Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Jacksonville,
Miami, Mobile, Orlando and Tallahassee respectively.
We think that the finding was somehow an indicator of fraud because only two trips were taken
to Birmingham. This is very low compared to other cities. The company needs to further

investigate and find out if employees are trying to ignore Birmingham or the company doesnt
really need its sales person in Birmingham.
Steps:

Use VLOOKUP in travel expense sheet to add City and Spno.

VLOOKUP (Lookup_value, Table_array, Col_index, [range_lookup]
To add City =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,5,FALSE)
To add Spno =VLOOKUP(C2,approvals!$A$1:$F$1302,4,FALSE)
Then select all the dates in Travel expense sheet and create a Pivot date.
Drag City to Column labels.
Drag Spno to row
Drag count of travel start to Values
This will give us cities name with Spno while counting each trips taken by employees to each
city.
Raw findings:

Test 23: Verify if hotel expense per night exceeding 35% above average for particular city
We set the threshold for hotel expense at 35% above the average for each city per night. We
originally chose 30% but found that it returns too many results, so we increased the threshold by
5% for better fraud indication. We found 3 cases in which an employee spends more than 35%
on hotel per night compared to others that travel to the same cities. Tom Anderson went over the
threshold once (expenseno 5641741) while Jennifer Hill did twice (expenseno 5641377 and
5640619).
These findings highly indicates reckless spending and/or frauds. Even though hotel rate
fluctuates depends on time traveled, it should not exceed 35% of the average. We also examined
the dates these trips took place and found that those were just ordinary dates. Especially in the
case of Jennifer Hill on her trip to Miami, she spent $650 for one night hotel. This is an
extraordinary amount compared to the average of $122 a night in Miami. This case is definitely a
fraud. The other two cases both Jennifer and Tom spent $160 per night while the average for one
night hotel in Jacksonville is only $118. In Toms case, it might not be fraud but we highly

recommend investigate Jennifer Hills spending as well as tightening up the company policy to
prevent reckless spending.
Steps:
Gather corresponding Expenseno, TravelStart, TravelEnd, Hotel, Salespersons names,
and Destination using VLOOKUP.
Compute numbers of Days Traveled by subtracting TravelStart from TravelEnd.
Compute the average amount of hotel per day by dividing Hotel by Days Traveled.
Create a pivot table with Destination as row and Average of Average Hotel per day as
values.
Copy pivot table and paste and values for easy calculation.
Filter by cities.
Use IF function to determine if the Average Hotel per night is 35% more than the
corresponding average on the pivot table for each cities.
Raw findings: