Practical articles on litigation support, business litigation, surveillance, vendor fraud, compliance, and intellectual property investigations from MAYN Investigations.
These three categories serve different purposes. An allegation identifies a concern. Evidence provides information about it. A finding explains what the available information supports.
An internal interview plan should help reviewers understand the sequence of events and the basis of each person’s account. It should not assume the allegation is already established.
An internal concern can quickly expand into unrelated questions. A written scope keeps the work focused on the reported conduct, relevant period, and sources that may clarify it.
A mailing address, registered-agent address, and operating location can be different. A discrepancy may be ordinary or may warrant further inquiry, depending on the representation at issue.
Duplicate amounts, vague descriptions, and inconsistent supporting documents can create questions for a business review. A focused checklist helps keep the investigation tied to specific transactions.
A vendor’s trading name may differ from its legal entity. Understanding that distinction helps avoid confusing unrelated businesses or overlooking a relevant affiliation.
Unusual invoices, inconsistent vendor information, or undisclosed relationships can justify a closer look. None of these indicators, by itself, establishes fraud.
A departing employee and a lost client may be connected, but the timing alone does not establish solicitation. Begin by separating documented contact from suspicion.
A restrictive-covenant dispute often raises factual questions about employment, competitive business activity, or relationships. The investigator’s role is to document relevant conduct for counsel.
