Trial testimony in a fraud or embezzlement matter presents the reconstruction as a chain from mechanism to record to amount. The economist explains how the scheme worked, shows representative transactions with their bank and third-party records, presents the loss schedule with proven and estimated portions labeled, and follows the traced funds forward. Demonstratives should let the fact finder see one transaction end to end before seeing the totals, and the consequential losses should be presented separately with the causal link explained. The rebuttal of the opposing expert should address inclusion criteria and the estimated portion, where the disagreement usually lies.
One to two preparation sessions in the week before testimony, after the demonstratives are drafted and the records are admitted or stipulated.
By labeling it, explaining the basis for the estimate, and showing the proven amount separately so the fact finder can award the proven portion with confidence and decide the estimated portion on its stated basis. Blending the two invites the argument that none of the total is proven.
By following one diverted payment from the entity's account through each account it passed through to the asset it bought, on a single board with the bank records beside it. Once the jury has seen one path end to end, the summary of all traced funds is credible. The expert states which traced amounts are documented at every step and which rest on an assumption where records were unavailable.
By separating them from the direct loss and stating the causal basis for each: a penalty incurred because a payment was missed, a loan taken to cover a shortfall, a contract lost because funds were unavailable. Losses the entity would have incurred regardless are excluded and the report says why. The direct loss stands on the bank records whatever the fact finder decides about the consequential items.
Request a consultation on Fraud and Embezzlement or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.