KW Economics prepares fraud and tracing analysis for fraud and embezzlement cases venued in North Dakota: what the loss claim consists of, the records that drive it, and a present value built to North Dakota damages rules and venues. Plaintiff and defense.
In a fraud or embezzlement matter the economist maps how the scheme worked from the records, identifies each transaction that fits it, and confirms the amounts against bank statements, check images, and third-party documents rather than the internal books alone. The diverted funds are traced forward through the accounts they passed through to the real estate, vehicles, investments, or other holdings they reached, and the loss is quantified by scheme, by year, and by account. The report separates amounts established from records, amounts estimated from patterns where records are missing, and amounts that could not be determined.
Forensic accounting for embezzlement, misappropriation, and financial statement irregularities. The work reconstructs the flow of funds through bank, ledger, and payment records, traces diverted assets to where they came to rest, quantifies the loss for each scheme identified, and documents the evidence trail so it can support a civil claim, an insurance recovery, or a referral to authorities.
The direct loss is usually the amount traced through the records, and its size depends on how long the scheme ran and how far back the records permit reconstruction. Consequential losses can exceed the direct loss when the diversion starved a business of working capital or caused a default. Where the funds were used to acquire assets, tracing to those assets can support recovery from the assets themselves, which changes the practical exposure. The analysis states the amounts by year and by method so that partial findings and limitations are visible.
North Dakota admits expert testimony liberally: the court asks whether the economist is qualified by training and experience and whether the opinion will help the fact finder, and leaves the weight of the testimony to cross-examination rather than screening its methodology in advance. An economic damages report is therefore tested on its inputs at deposition and trial, which is why it states each assumption and its source.
Highest court: North Dakota Supreme Court. Court system: ndcourts.gov.
Federal venues: District of North Dakota.
North Dakota reduces a negligence-based award by the plaintiff's share of fault and bars recovery once that share equals or exceeds the combined fault of the defendants. Prejudgment interest is generally limited to sums that were certain when the loss occurred, which favors a liquidated contract balance over a projected loss. A statutory limit applies to noneconomic damages in health care malpractice claims while economic damages are unlimited, so the economist's figure enters the case at its full present value, with the components that were certain when they accrued identified separately.
We issue the final report and provide deposition and trial testimony, support for insurance or restitution claims, and rebuttal of opposing accounting analyses.
In a fraud or embezzlement matter the economist maps how the scheme worked from the records, identifies each transaction that fits it, and confirms the amounts against bank statements, check images, and third-party documents rather than the internal books alone. The diverted funds are traced forward through the accounts they passed through to the real estate, vehicles, investments, or other holdings they reached, and the loss is quantified by scheme, by year, and by account. The report separates amounts established from records, amounts estimated from patterns where records are missing, and amounts that could not be determined.
North Dakota admits expert testimony liberally: the court asks whether the economist is qualified by training and experience and whether the opinion will help the fact finder, and leaves the weight of the testimony to cross-examination rather than screening its methodology in advance. An economic damages report is therefore tested on its inputs at deposition and trial, which is why it states each assumption and its source. Fraud and Embezzlement cases venued in North Dakota are heard in the District Court (General jurisdiction; 7 judicial districts across 53 counties), with final appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Matters within federal jurisdiction proceed in the District of North Dakota.
North Dakota reduces a negligence-based award by the plaintiff's share of fault and bars recovery once that share equals or exceeds the combined fault of the defendants. Prejudgment interest is generally limited to sums that were certain when the loss occurred, which favors a liquidated contract balance over a projected loss. A statutory limit applies to noneconomic damages in health care malpractice claims while economic damages are unlimited, so the economist's figure enters the case at its full present value, with the components that were certain when they accrued identified separately. The report presents past and future amounts separately, states every rate and table with its source, and shows the result under the alternatives the other side is likely to argue, so counsel can apply the North Dakota rules to a documented figure.
Request a consultation on Fraud & Tracing or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.