An unexpected payment, an unfamiliar account and a convincing message may arrive as separate concerns. The useful first step is to establish how they relate. A label such as fraud, insider activity or impersonation can help organise a response, but choosing one too early can narrow the investigation.
Begin with a chronology. What happened, when did it happen, and which records support that account? Keep the original material where possible. A screenshot may explain a concern, but the source message or file can contain context that the screenshot omits.
Separate observation from interpretation. A person had access to a document is different from a person disclosed that document. An unusual transaction deserves examination; its existence does not establish why it occurred. Record both the concern and the evidence that could distinguish between explanations.
Different specialists may be needed, but they should work around the same questions. Financial analysis, source enquiries and technical examination are most useful when findings can be compared in context. The final account should explain what is supported, what remains uncertain and which further enquiries would change the decision.
Cato & Veil practice note.
Receive publication updates ↗