Create a list of suggested improvements for Mogel’s Inc. that would help prevent a similar skimming scheme from occurring. For each improvement, indicate why this will help prevent a skimming scheme similar to this from happening again at Mogel’s. (1) Stefan Winkler used a method of force balancing to try to cover up his scheme. When payments were received he posted payment to customer’s accounts but never deposited the money into Mogel’s account. This could have been avoided if Mogel’s had another employee reconcile its bank statements regularly and toughly. According to Wells, when an individual skims receivables but continues to post payments to customer accounts, postings to accounts receivable will exceed what is reflected in the daily deposit. (2) Winkler also used the method of lapping to conceal his skimming as well. He would steal customer A’s payment then post customer B’s payment to A’s account and so forth . Mogel’s should have an employee spot check deposits to accounts receivable to make sure that payments are being applied to the correct accounts. Wells implies, If a check were received by Customer A but the payment posted to Customer B’s account, this would indicate a lapping scheme. (3). Mogel’s could have noticed something was suspicious by how Winkler was such a "model" employee. In order to cover up his schemes, Winkler had to come to work everyday to make sure no one else was looking at his books.