Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 419–446 | Cite as

Towards a Financial Fraud Ontology: A Legal Modelling Approach

  • John Kingston
  • Burkhard Schafer
  • Wim Vandenberghe
Article

Abstract

This document discusses the status of research on detection and prevention of financial fraud undertaken as part of the IST European Commission funded FF POIROT (Financial Fraud Prevention Oriented Information Resources Using Ontology Technology) project. A first task has been the specification of the user requirements that define the functionality of the financial fraud ontology to be designed by the FF POIROT partners. It is claimed here that modeling fraudulent activity involves a mixture of law and facts as well as inferences about facts present, facts presumed or facts missing. The purpose of this paper is to explain this abstract model and to specify the set of user requirements.

Keywords

evidence financial fraud knowledge modeling law legal ontology user requirement analysis World Wide Web 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso, J. L., Carranza, C., Castells, P., Foncillas, B., Lara, R. and Rico, M. (2003). Semantic Web Technologies for Economic and Financial Information Management http://nets. ii.uam.es/%7Eaniceto/publications/iswc03-poster.pdf
  2. Breuker, J. A. and Winkels, R. (2003). Use and Reuse of Legal Ontologies in Knowledge Engineering and Information Management. In Proceedings of The ICAIL Workshop on Legal OntologiesGoogle Scholar
  3. Breuker, J. A. and Boer, A. (2002). Developing Ontologies for Legal Information Serving and Management. In Proceedings of the EKAW Workshop on Knowledge Management through Corporate Semantics WebsGoogle Scholar
  4. Breuker, J., Elhag, L., Petkov, E., Winkels, R. 2002

    Ontologies for Legal Information Serving and Knowledge Management

    Bench-Capon, T.Daskalopulu, A.Winkels, R. eds. Legal Knowledge and Information SystemsIOS PressAmsterdam
    Google Scholar
  5. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N. and Doerr, M. (2002). Harmonization Perspectives of Some Promising Content Standards, OntoWeb Consortium http://www.ontoweb.org/download/deliverables/D3.4.pdf
  6. Guarino, N. 1998

    Formal Ontology in Information Systems

    Guarino, N. eds. Formal Ontology in Information SystemsIOSAmsterdam315
    Google Scholar
  7. Graham, J. A. (2003). The Cybersecurities’ Notion of Targeting in General Private International Law. Cyberbanking & Law 5Google Scholar
  8. Geerts, G. (1997). The Timeless Way of Building Accounting Information Systems. OOPSLA Workshop on Business Object Design and ImplementationGoogle Scholar
  9. Geerts, G. L., McCarthy, W. E. 2002An Ontological Analysis of the Economic Primitives of the Extended-REA Enterprise Information ArchitectureInternational Journal of Accounting Information Systems3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gertzenstein, D. A. (2003). An Object Oriented Framework for Business Systems Based on the REA Pattern http://mysite.verizon.net/agertzen/REAFramework.pdf
  11. Leary, R., Vandenberghe, W. and Zeleznikow, J. (2003). Towards a Financial Fraud Ontology; A Legal Modeling Approach. ICAIL Workshop on Legal OntologiesGoogle Scholar
  12. Mccarthy, W. E. 1982The REA Accounting Model: A Generalized Framework for Accounting Systems in a Shared Data EnvironmentThe Accounting Review57554578Google Scholar
  13. Mccarthy, W. E. and Geerts, G. (2000). The Ontological Foundation of REA Enterprise Information Systems available at http://www.msu.edu/user/mccarth4/rea-ontology/ index.htm;
  14. Mccarthy, W. E., Geerts, G. 2002An Ontological Analysis of the Economic Primitives of the Extended-REA Enterprise Information ArchitectureThe International Journal of Accounting Information Systems3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schafer, B. (2001). Grounding Legal Information Systems. Global Review of Cyberlaw. Vol 1.Google Scholar
  16. Schafer, B. 1999Form Follows Function Fails – as Epistemological Foundation of Comparative LawSocial Epistemology13113128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schum, D. A. (1994). Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, WylieGoogle Scholar
  18. Sheptycki J. (2000). Policing the Virtual Launderette. Money Laundering, New Technology and Global Governance. In ibid (ed), Issues in Transnational Policing. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  19. SUMO, “Financial Ontology” available at http://ontology.teknowledge.com/
  20. Sure, Y. and Lau, T. H. (2002). Introducing Ontology-based Skills Management at a large Insurance Company. In Modellierung 2002, Modellierung in der Praxis - Modellierung für die Praxis, Tutzing, pp. 123–134Google Scholar
  21. Twining, W. (1990). Rethinking Evidence. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Valente, A., Breuker, J. 1994

    A Functional View of Law

    Bargellini, G.Binazzi, S. eds. Towards a Global Expert System in LawCEDAM PublishersPadua
    Google Scholar
  23. Vandenberghe, W., Schafer, B. and Kingston, J. (2003). Light Ontologies for Heavy Criminals? Ontological Modeling and Fraud Investigation in the EU. In Grenon, P. (ed), Reference Ontologies and Application Ontologies, IFOMIS Report, Vol 4, 23–33Google Scholar
  24. Van Kralingen, R. W. (1997). A Conceptual Frame-based Ontology for Law. In Proceedings of The First International Workshop on Legal Ontologies. University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  25. Visser, P. R. S., van Kralingen, R. W. and Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1997). A Method for the Development of Legal Knowledge Systems. In Proceedings of ICAIL’97. MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  26. Wigmore, J. H. 1928A Panorama of the World’s Legal SystemsWashington Law Book CompanyWashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Wigmore, J. H. 1937The Science of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial TrialsLittle BrownBostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Zweigert, K., Koetz, H. 1987An Introduction to Comparative Law (transl. Weir)ClarendonOxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Kingston
    • 1
  • Burkhard Schafer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wim Vandenberghe
    • 1
  1. 1.Joseph Bell Centre for Forensic Statistics & Legal ReasoningUniversity of EdinburghUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.School of LawUniversity of EdinburghUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations