Findings that hold up when someone disputes them.
A corporate investigation establishes what happened inside an organization — fraud, misappropriation, insider data theft, or regulatory exposure — and documents it to a standard that survives scrutiny from regulators, opposing counsel, and a court.
Internal investigations fail in predictable ways: they start too broadly, they contaminate the evidence they were meant to preserve, or they produce a conclusion that no one can defend when a regulator asks how it was reached. The technical work and the documentation of that work are the same job.
Our examiners lead investigations for New York companies, their counsel, and regulators — tracing funds and assets, reconstructing insider activity from device and system artifacts, and testing whistleblower allegations independently. Findings are delivered so that they can be acted on, disclosed, or defended, depending on what the situation turns out to require.
What we deliver
- Fraud & financial investigations
- Anti-money-laundering (AML)
- Asset tracing & recovery
- Regulatory & enforcement support
- Internal & whistleblower inquiries
- Insider-threat & data-theft analysis
How the engagement runs
-
Intake and containment
We establish what is alleged, who needs to know, and what evidence is at immediate risk — then preserve it before the investigation becomes widely known internally.
-
Evidence development
Device, system, financial, and communications evidence is collected forensically and analyzed together, because insider matters rarely resolve from any single source.
-
Testing the allegation
Findings are tested against alternative explanations. An investigation that only looks for confirmation produces a conclusion that will not survive the first serious challenge.
-
Reporting
We deliver findings in the form the situation calls for — a written report, a briefing to counsel or the board, or support for a regulatory submission — with the underlying work documented.
Why the jurisdiction matters
New York concentrates regulators to a degree few jurisdictions match. Companies here answer to the New York State Department of Financial Services and the New York Attorney General alongside federal agencies and the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern and Eastern Districts, and the same underlying facts are frequently examined by more than one of them.
That shapes how we document: an investigation is built once, to a standard that holds whether it ends in a board briefing, a regulatory submission, or litigation.
Investigations — common questions
Investigations are routinely conducted under counsel's direction to support applicable privilege protections, and access is limited to those who need it. Whether a particular investigation or its work product is ultimately privileged is a legal determination for counsel, and disclosure obligations can arise depending on the findings and the regulatory posture.
It changes the handling, not the method. Evidence preservation may need to happen without alerting the subject, reporting lines usually move to the board or a committee rather than management, and the independence of the investigators becomes something that will itself be examined later.
We support regulatory and enforcement matters, typically through counsel — developing the underlying factual and technical record, and explaining methodology when a regulator tests how a conclusion was reached.
Yes. Asset tracing across financial channels and jurisdictions, and reconstruction of data exfiltration from device and system artifacts, are both core capabilities. What is recoverable depends heavily on how quickly preservation happens.