02MethodRecords in, findings out

From records to findings.

A clear conclusion starts with a traceable line of inquiry. Each stage leaves a record of what was examined and why.


  1. Start with the records

    Bank statements, ledgers, contracts, financial disclosures and supporting documents define the question. Gaps and source limitations are identified at the outset.

    • What material is available?
    • Where did it come from?
    • What remains missing?

  2. Test the explanation

    Transaction tracing, document comparison, income analysis and appropriate investigative work test the explanation against the available evidence.

    • Do the records reconcile?
    • Which transfers need explanation?
    • What alternatives remain?

  3. Document the findings

    Findings identify their source records, assumptions and limitations, so they can be followed and tested by others.

    • What is supported?
    • How was it established?
    • What cannot be concluded?

Possible deliverablesExpert reportTransaction chronologySupporting exhibitsTestimony

03Representative mattersDescribed by Fraud Examination Service

The work behind the opinion.

Close detail of a US banknote portrait and serial numberExh. A · Follow the money

Matter A · Family-law financial analysis

Following assets across borders.

A dissolution matter involving asset diversion called for examination of bank records, transfers and corporate structures. The work connected the financial records with questions about asset ownership and movement.

Records
Bank records, transfers, corporate structures
Focus
Asset ownership and movement
Representative asset-tracing engagements

Matter B · Due diligence

An acquisition questioned.

Revenue recognition and inventory records were examined as part of retail-acquisition due diligence.

Records
Revenue recognition, inventory
Context
Retail acquisition
The due-diligence engagement

Matter C · Valuation dispute

A valuation disputed.

Business ownership, fund flows and true net income were examined in a valuation and family-law dispute.

Records
Ownership, fund flows, net income
Context
Valuation and family law
The valuation engagement

Each engagement has its own scope, evidence and limitations. Representative matters do not predict the outcome of another case.

04Professional judgmentFounder

What does the evidence support, and where does it stop?

Geoffrey B Davis Jr.

Experience across law enforcement, criminal investigation, civil enforcement, fraud examination, due diligence and litigation informs the work of Fraud Examination Service.

Mr. Davis has worked on consulting and expert-witness engagements involving financial statements, contracts, ERISA matters, valuation disputes, governance, and matrimonial asset and income analysis.

Full background and experience

Experience across

  • Law enforcement
  • Criminal investigation
  • Civil enforcement
  • Fraud examination
  • Due diligence
  • Litigation

Engagements involving

  • Financial statements
  • Contracts
  • ERISA matters
  • Valuation disputes
  • Governance
  • Matrimonial asset and income analysis
05Scope and costHow an engagement is sized
Printed transaction activity records beside a stack of clipped financial documents
Fig. 05 · Transaction records under review
Engagement briefInitial scope

Scope first. Then a clear next step.

The cost of a financial investigation depends on the question, the records and the work required to answer it.

01RecordsAvailability, quality and date range
02ComplexityAccounts, entities, transfers and jurisdictions
03DeliverablesPreliminary analysis, reporting, exhibits or testimony

An initial discussion helps define the matter, practical priorities and an appropriate engagement scope.

Request Consultation
06QuestionsBefore the first conversation

Before you get in touch.

A few practical answers about the first conversation.

When a financial question needs independent examination: unexplained transfers, irregular business records, disputed assets or income, or a matter requiring expert analysis. The initial discussion helps establish whether the engagement fits.

Start with a short description of the issue, the relevant jurisdiction, any approaching deadline and an overview of the records available. Ask how sensitive documents should be supplied before sending them.

Depending on scope, the work may produce documented findings, an expert report, a transaction chronology, supporting exhibits or testimony. Deliverables and limitations should be defined in the engagement.

Yes. The existing practice includes pre-case consultation and litigation consulting. The initial conversation can help identify the financial questions and records relevant to a potential engagement.