Which of the following is generally NOT a recommended practice when organizing evidence in fraud cases?

Filing all papers chronologically is generally not recommended in fraud investigations because it may not provide the most efficient or effective way to access and analyze evidence. Organizing evidence chronologically can lead to a disjointed view of the case, making it difficult to see relevant connections between different pieces of information. In fraud investigations, it is often more beneficial to organize evidence by categories that reflect the nature of the evidence, such as by witness statements, types of documents, or specific events related to the fraud. This approach enables investigators to derive insights more readily and develop a clearer understanding of the broader context of the investigation.

In contrast, segregating documents by witness, creating a key document file, and establishing an early database are all effective strategies. Segregating documents by witness allows for easy reference to each person’s testimony in relation to the collected evidence. A key document file highlights the most critical pieces of evidence, ensuring that they are easily accessible during analysis. Establishing a database from the outset provides an organized platform for managing and retrieving information efficiently throughout the investigation. These practices ultimately enhance the investigator's ability to draw connections and build a cohesive understanding of the fraud at hand.