Wire Fraud Investigation Services

It reconstructs the available record of the instruction, communications, account activity, and payment approvals. Findings may support an explanation of spoofing, account access, or document changes. They may also leave important questions unresolved. The work does not automatically establish the sender’s identity, intent, or legal responsibility, and it does not show where funds moved after the documented transfer.

No. Forensic Discovery does not recover funds or trace them through the banking system. Contact your bank promptly about its response options and coordinate with counsel and law enforcement as appropriate. Our findings can supply a factual account for those efforts or an insurance claim, but we cannot promise a recall, reimbursement, coverage decision, or other outcome.

We compare native headers, conversation records, available sign-ins, mailbox audit events, and rules. The comparison may distinguish an imitation sender from evidence of account access. One side’s records may be insufficient; examining another party’s sources requires appropriate authority. An IP address or account event alone does not identify a person, and absent logs cannot rule out compromise.

Phishing is a deceptive message used to induce an action, such as disclosing credentials. BEC describes schemes that abuse business communications, often to divert payments, using compromised accounts or impersonation. A phishing message can be an entry point, but a fraudulent instruction does not by itself establish phishing or mailbox access. The investigation tests those explanations against the available evidence.

Not necessarily. Relevant messages, exported records, logs, or device artifacts may remain, but changes can affect what is available. Bring in an examiner early to assess the remaining sources and document actions already taken. Do not assume a current mailbox configuration shows its earlier state. Missing or expired records should be disclosed as limitations rather than filled with assumptions.

Prompt scoping helps identify records that may expire or change. Bank response processes have their own timing, so contact the bank without waiting for a completed forensic report. Counsel and the technical team can coordinate source priorities and authority. Availability, retention, source volume, and access affect the work schedule; we confirm the feasible scope and timing rather than promise a fixed turnaround.

A scoped report can document the communications, relevant events, and exhibits for counsel to use with those recipients. Each recipient decides what it needs and how it evaluates the material. An investigation does not replace a bank’s response process, an insurance policy review, or a report to law enforcement. Agree on the intended use and available records when scoping the engagement.

The proposed cost depends on the number of mailboxes and tenants, source access, log coverage, the period examined, device work, deadlines, and deliverables. Comparing both sides of a disputed conversation can add sources and coordination. Ask for the proposed scope, deliverables, assumptions and pricing in writing before authorizing work. We address additional work if new evidence changes the questions. There is no universal price for every diverted payment.

Documented collection, chain of custody, explained methods, source references, and candid limitations can support evaluation of the findings. They do not guarantee admissibility, evidentiary weight, or success. Counsel assesses the legal issues and the court decides admissibility. The judge or jury, as applicable, evaluates evidentiary weight. The report should make clear what was observed, what was inferred, and which conclusions the available record cannot support.

Reports, declarations, deposition support, and trial testimony can be included in an agreed engagement. Our expert witness and testimony services address the technical findings and their basis. Counsel determines the legal presentation; the examiner’s role is to provide an independent technical opinion within their qualifications and the limits of the evidence. Engagement does not guarantee expert qualification, admissibility, or a particular result.