David Anderson is principal of David Anderson & Associates, a Philadelphia forensic accounting firm that provides a full range of fraud investigation, forensic accounting, and marital dissolution services in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley.

My previous blog discussed how forensic accountants assess the credibility of interviewees.  This blog focuses on how I assess the reliability of documents I analyze in performing my work.

As a forensic accountant, I am asked to analyze various information provided to me, including that contained in documents, business databases, and testimony.  Generally, in performing this analysis for litigation, I assign the highest reliability to preprinted historical documents (concurrent with the time of the matter giving rise to the litigation) that have been filed with a governmental agency or a court, and which contain a signed affidavit attesting to the truthfulness and completeness of the document.

My scale of reliability for these types of information goes from highest reliability to lowest reliability as follows:

• Preprinted historical documents (concurrent with the time of the matter giving rise to the litigation) that have been filed with a governmental agency or a court, and which contain a signed affidavit attesting to the truthfulness and completeness of the document (for example, a signed Federal income tax return which was timely filed);
• Signed preprinted historical documents (concurrent with the time of the matter giving rise to the litigation) that have been filed with a governmental agency or a court, and which do not contain a signed affidavit attesting to the truthfulness and completeness of the document (for example, a fully signed and dated contract filed with a regulatory agency);
• Unsigned preprinted historical documents (concurrent with the time of the matter giving rise to the litigation) that have been filed with a governmental agency or a court, and which do not contain a signed affidavit attesting to the truthfulness and completeness of the document (for example, non-contract documents filed concurrently with the above-cited contract);
• Publicly available or proprietary databases commonly used by forensic accountants and investigators (for example, Bureau of Labor Statistics Compensation tables);
• Signed preprinted historical documents subject to audit (for example, signed and dated contracts examined by financial auditors);
• Unsigned preprinted historical documents subject to audit (for example, vendor invoices examined by financial auditors);
• Signed preprinted historical documents not subject to audit (for example, signed and dated purchase orders);
• Unsigned preprinted historical documents not subject to audit (for example, customer billing invoices);
• Signed handwritten historical documents subject to audit (for example, a signed and dated handwritten explanation provided to a financial auditor as to why a customer was granted a credit against a billing invoice);
• Sworn testimony of third parties not named in or involved in the litigation (for example, a customer’s sworn affidavit that he/she did not receive certain billed shipments);
• Unsigned handwritten historical documents subject to audit (for example, dated handwritten notes about a customer’s complaint that he/she did not receive certain billed shipments which were examined by financial auditors);
• Signed handwritten historical documents not subject to audit (for example, the same as above but signed and dated by the employee at the time, and which was never examined by financial auditors);
• Unsigned handwritten historical documents not subject to audit (for example, the same as above, but never signed by the employee and which was never examined by financial auditors);
• Sworn testimony of parties involved in the litigation.

It may seem strange I would assign the lowest level of reliability to sworn testimony from the parties in litigation, but this is because such testimony can be colored by the stake each party has in the litigation.

The same applies to certain documents supplied by each party; for example, in one recent case, one side presented me with unfiled, unsigned, and undated business tax returns as evidence of their income (loss), but then refused to provide me access to their books and records to verify the reliability of the business tax returns.

—–     —–     —–     —–     —–

When you need the services of a Certified Fraud Examiner or any other forensic accounting services in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley, please contact the Philadelphia forensic accounting firm of David Anderson & Associates by calling David Anderson at 267-207-3597 or emailing him at david@davidandersonassociates.com.

About David Anderson & Associates

David Anderson & Associates is a Philadelphia forensic accounting firm that provides a full range of forensic accounting services in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley.  The experienced professionals at David Anderson & Associates provide forensic accounting, business valuation, fraud investigation, fraud deterrence, litigation support, economic damage analysis, business consulting and outsourced CFO services.  Company principal David Anderson is a forensic accounting expert who has more than 30 years of experience in financial and operational leadership positions and is a Certified Public Accountant, a Certified Fraud Examiner, and a Certified Valuation Analyst.