ALTHOUGH REPORTING FRAUD IS AN AUDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITY, MOST ACCOUNTANTS ARE PROBABLY UNFAMILIAR WITH METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES AND COULD BENEFIT FROM AN INFORMATION SYSTEM. DATA ON CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CASES OF FRAUD WOULD IMPROVE ACCOUNTANTS' ABILITIES TO RECOGNIZE FRAUD AND HANDLE SUCH INCIDENTS, AS WELL AS CLARIFY THE PROFESSION'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DETECTION. A PRACTITIONER'S REPORT TO THE AICPA WOULD INCLUDE THE KIND OF FRAUD, AMOUNT INVOLVED, DETECTION METHODS, EXTENT OF COLLUSION, A DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRM, CASE OUTCOME, AUDITOR'S ACTIONS, AND MEASURES WHICH COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FRAUD. CASES WHICH ARE REPORTED IN THE MEDIA SHOULD BE ANALYZED IN A SIMILIAR MANNER. CATEGORIES FOR CODING THE DATA ARE SUGGESTED. A PRELIMINARY REPORT COULD BE FILED WHEN A FRAUD IS DISCOVERED, FOLLOWED BY A FINAL REPORT ON THE OUTCOME. THE INFORMATION SERVICES COULD BE FUNDED BY A CHARGE FOR THE REPORTS, MEMBERSHIP DUES, OR AS PART OF A CHARGE FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. BECAUSE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS CAN POSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS, THE AICPA'S ATTORNEYS WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW REPORTS TO AVOID LIBEL SUITS. TTHE REPORTING PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR INVESTIGATIVE ASPECTS, BUT WOULD REMAIN INSTRUCTIVE AND INFORMATIVE. (MJM)