Public records are documents and data maintained by government agencies that are available for inspection by the general public, either freely or for a nominal fee. For a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), they are among the most valuable and legally safe sources of information because they can be accessed without the subject's knowledge or consent and without raising privacy concerns.

Key categories of public records include: (1) Court records – civil suits, criminal cases, bankruptcies, judgments, and divorce filings, which reveal litigation history, financial distress, and prior misconduct; (2) Real property records – deeds, mortgages, liens, and tax assessments held by county recorders, useful for identifying hidden assets or lifestyle inconsistencies; (3) Business filings – corporate registrations, fictitious business names, UCC filings, and Secretary of State records that expose ownership, officers, shell companies, and undisclosed conflicts of interest; (4) Vital records and licensing – birth, marriage, death records, professional and driver's licenses, which help verify identity and background; (5) Regulatory and government records – SEC filings, tax liens, voter registration, and campaign contributions.

CFEs use public records to: verify a subject's identity and background; locate individuals and witnesses; identify assets for recovery or to detect concealment; uncover undisclosed business relationships suggesting kickbacks or bid rigging; corroborate or refute statements made in interviews; and establish patterns of behavior such as repeated bankruptcies or lawsuits.

Limitations matter. Records vary by jurisdiction, may be incomplete, outdated, or contain errors, and some (e.g., sealed court files, certain tax records) are restricted. Online aggregators compile data but should be verified against original sources. CFEs must also comply with laws such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act when records are used for employment or financial decisions. Properly used, public records provide an efficient, defensible foundation for fraud investigations.

In the CFE curriculum, Sources of Information distinguishes between public records (freely available to anyone, such as court filings, property records, and corporate registrations) and nonpublic records, which are restricted by law, contract, or policy and require specific legal authority or consent to obtain. Nonpublic records typically include banking and financial account records, credit reports, tax returns, medical records, telephone and electronic communication records, educational records, and employment or personnel files held by third parties.

Access to these records is governed by privacy and confidentiality laws that vary by jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act restrict access to financial institution records; the Fair Credit Reporting Act limits who may pull a consumer credit report and for what 'permissible purpose'; HIPAA protects medical information; the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act restrict access to communications data; and tax returns are protected under the Internal Revenue Code. Many other countries, such as those under the EU's GDPR, impose even stricter data protection regimes.

Fraud examiners generally gain lawful access to nonpublic records through one of several means: (1) voluntary consent or authorization from the subject, often in writing; (2) legal process such as a subpoena, court order, search warrant, or discovery request in civil litigation; (3) the organization's own records when the examiner is acting on behalf of the record owner (e.g., an employer's internal email or payroll data, subject to company policy and employee notice); or (4) cooperation with law enforcement, who possess broader investigative authority.

CFEs must never use pretexting, bribery, or deception to obtain protected records, as this can violate laws such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's anti-pretexting provisions and the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics. Improperly obtained evidence may also be inadmissible and expose the examiner and client to civil and criminal liability.

Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) refers to information that is lawfully collected from publicly available sources and then analyzed to produce actionable intelligence. For a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), OSINT is a cornerstone of the 'Sources of Information' domain because it allows investigators to develop background on subjects, verify claims, identify assets, and uncover relationships without alerting the target or requiring legal process such as subpoenas.

Common OSINT sources include: public records (property deeds, court filings, liens, judgments, bankruptcies, UCC filings, corporate registrations, professional licenses); government databases (SEC EDGAR filings, OFAC sanctions lists, FINRA BrokerCheck, voter registration); media (newspapers, press releases, trade journals); the internet (company websites, blogs, forums, archived pages via the Wayback Machine, domain registration/WHOIS data); and social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram), which can reveal lifestyle indicators, associates, employment history, and travel inconsistent with reported income—classic red flags of fraud.

CFEs use OSINT at several stages of an examination. Early on, it helps build a profile of a suspect or vendor, identify undisclosed business interests, and detect conflicts of interest (e.g., an employee secretly owning a vendor company). During the investigation, it supports asset tracing, corroborates interview statements, and establishes timelines. In due diligence engagements, it screens prospective partners or employees for litigation history, regulatory actions, or adverse media.

Key considerations include legality and ethics—CFEs must comply with privacy laws, the Fair Credit Reporting Act when applicable, and terms of service, and must never use deception or pretexting that violates law or the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics. Investigators should also document sources, capture evidence with dates and URLs, and assess reliability, since open sources can be outdated, incomplete, or deliberately false. Properly applied, OSINT is a cost-effective, low-risk method that strengthens the evidentiary foundation of a fraud examination.

Social media has become a critical source of information for Certified Fraud Examiners, but its use raises important privacy and documentation concerns that must be carefully managed.

Privacy Considerations: Fraud examiners must distinguish between publicly available content and information protected by privacy settings. Information a user has made public (open profiles, public posts, comments on public pages) can generally be reviewed without consent, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, examiners should never use deceptive tactics such as creating fake profiles, impersonating others, or 'friending' a subject under false pretenses to access private content—this is called pretexting and may violate laws, platform terms of service, and professional ethics (including the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics). Accessing password-protected accounts without authorization may violate statutes like the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, or data protection laws such as the GDPR in Europe. Employers must also respect employee rights; many jurisdictions prohibit requiring employees or applicants to disclose social media passwords.

Documentation Requirements: Social media content is volatile—posts can be edited or deleted at any moment—so proper preservation is essential for evidentiary value. Examiners should capture evidence using screenshots or specialized forensic capture tools that record the full page, URL, date, and time stamp. Metadata should be preserved where possible, and each capture should be hashed (e.g., MD5 or SHA-256) to prove integrity. A detailed log noting who collected the evidence, when, how, and from what source establishes chain of custody. Examiners should also document the context, such as surrounding posts, to avoid claims of selective presentation. For litigation, preservation letters may be sent to social media providers or the opposing party, and authentication under evidentiary rules (such as Federal Rule of Evidence 901) must be anticipated.

In sum, social media evidence is valuable but must be gathered lawfully, ethically, and with meticulous documentation to withstand legal scrutiny.