Rebuttal analysis applied to fraud and embezzlement litigation: methodology, deliverables, and case-specific considerations.
An opposing loss quantification in a fraud matter is tested on whether each amount was confirmed against bank statements and third-party documents or taken from the internal books, whether estimated periods are separated from documented ones, whether the tracing follows the funds step by step or assumes a destination, and whether consequential losses are linked to the diversion or include losses that other causes produced. The economist checks the transaction schedules against the records, recalculates the loss by scheme and period under corrected inputs, and states what the records support and what they do not.
Critique of an opposing economic damages, valuation, or forensic accounting report for plaintiff or defense counsel. The review tests the assumptions, data sources, discount rates, worklife and life expectancy inputs, growth rates, mitigation treatment, and arithmetic behind the opposing number, identifies the errors that matter, and quantifies how the conclusion changes when they are corrected. The result supports cross-examination, a rebuttal report, or a motion directed at the reliability of the opinion.
The claim consists of the amounts diverted, reconstructed transaction by transaction from bank records, the general ledger, payroll, vendor files, and supporting documents; the consequential losses the diversion caused, such as lost profits when funds were unavailable to the business, penalties and interest, or the cost of borrowing to replace the funds; the cost of investigating and remediating the scheme; and, where the assets were converted into property or other holdings, the current value of what the funds bought. The drivers are the completeness of the bank and accounting records, the accounting system's audit trail, and third-party records that confirm or contradict the internal books.
We issue a rebuttal report where one is disclosed and provide deposition and trial testimony, cross-examination outlines, and support for motions directed at the opinion.
Whether each transaction ties to a bank record or third-party document, whether the scheme definition captures only unauthorized activity, whether the same transaction appears in more than one schedule, and whether the estimated portions are identified as estimates with the method stated.
No. The economist tests what the records show about the money and the amounts. Whether the conduct was fraudulent is a question for the fact finder, and the review is written so it supports that inquiry without reaching it.
Request a consultation on Rebuttal or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.