Money is missing or payments look wrong
Review the transaction trail, recipients, approvals and underlying purpose. An unexplained payment is a reason to investigate—not proof of theft.
Financial investigation · Evidence · Clarity
Unexplained transactions deserve clear answers—not assumptions.
SAIF Chartered Accountants helps businesses examine financial irregularities, suspected misappropriation and disputed transactions through focused forensic accounting. We define the questions, analyse the available evidence and explain the findings and their limits.
Start with a brief description. Share sensitive records only after agreeing authority, scope and a secure channel.

From a concern to a defined question
A forensic investigation is a targeted examination of financial events. It may begin with an unexplained payment, a discrepancy in the accounts, a whistleblower concern or a commercial dispute. Its purpose is to establish a supportable financial picture, not to confirm a predetermined accusation.
Review the transaction trail, recipients, approvals and underlying purpose. An unexplained payment is a reason to investigate—not proof of theft.
Reconcile shareholder accounts, agreed entitlements, recorded payments and supporting documents. Separate accounting facts from legal ownership or contractual questions.
Examine the relevant purchase, payroll or expense records against authorisations and evidence of goods, services or employment.
Investigate selected revenue, journal, stock or balance-sheet discrepancies and assess whether the explanation is error, weak controls or possible misconduct.
A red flag is a starting point, not a verdict. Duplicate entries, timing differences, legitimate related-party transactions and weak documentation can produce unusual results without proving fraud.
Before the detailed review
Ask authorised management, IT and legal advisers to protect relevant records and logs. Avoid editing original files, deleting correspondence or changing retention settings without an agreed preservation plan.
Record what happened, when it was noticed, the accounts or transactions involved and what is known versus suspected. Limit circulation to appropriate people and avoid unsupported allegations.
Identify who can commission the work and provide access. Discuss conflicts, data handling, intended report recipients and any urgent legal, banking or regulatory matters before collecting more information.
For an active payment compromise, promptly involve the company’s authorised banking, IT and legal contacts. A later forensic review is not a substitute for an immediate incident response.
Financial questions we can assess
The accepted scope depends on the concern, records, expertise and permissions needed. Agree any specialist digital-forensic, legal or court-expert work separately.
Investigate specific allegations involving company funds, reimbursements, receipts or expenses. Establish the period, transactions and access available before defining the testing.
Outputs may include transaction schedules, a chronology and evidence-linked findings.
Compare vendor records, purchase orders, approvals, invoices, delivery evidence and payments. Examine duplicate billing, unusual pricing or potential conflicts where the information supports such tests.
Distinguish a duplicate record, legitimate adjustment and unsupported payment.
Examine selected employee payments, expense claims, stock movements or asset disposals against the relevant records and approvals. Assess missing documentation and discrepancies.
A stock shortage or unmatched payment needs explanation before attributing responsibility.
Reconstruct movements shown by lawfully available bank, ledger and transaction records. Identify counterparties, transfers, gaps and further evidence needed.
Tracing through unavailable third-party accounts, recovery and freezing orders are not automatic powers of an accountant.
Analyse disputed withdrawals, related-party transactions, account balances or a defined financial loss. Explain the calculation, source records, assumptions and potential overlap.
Commercial damage, legal entitlement and recoverability require separate assessment with counsel.
Prepare financial schedules and analysis for an agreed dispute or claim. Identify the intended recipient and required format before accepting the assignment.
Expert testimony, court appointment or insurer acceptance must be assessed separately; none is guaranteed.
Choose the right engagement
| Engagement | Main question | Typical focus |
|---|---|---|
| Forensic accounting / investigation | What explains this concern, and what does the evidence support? | Defined transactions, events, disputed amounts and evidence-linked findings. |
| Internal audit | How effectively are the agreed risks and controls being managed? | Governance, processes, control design and operation, with recommendations. |
| Financial statement audit | Are the financial statements fairly presented under the applicable framework? | An assurance engagement with an audit opinion on the financial statements. |
Fraud responsibilities also form part of a financial statement audit; it is not accurate to say ordinary auditors ignore fraud. However, its objective and scope differ from a commissioned investigation. The IAASB’s ISA 240 materials explain the audit context. Apply the version effective for the relevant period and jurisdiction.
See internal audit and controls or annual audit services when those objectives better match your needs.
A structured review
Agree the allegations or discrepancies to examine, time period, entities, decision-maker, report audience and authority to commission the work. Complete conflict and capability checks.
Agree lawful access, collection methods, document ownership and preservation responsibilities with authorised management, IT and legal advisers where needed.
Reconcile the data, trace selected transactions and compare supporting evidence. Investigate alternative explanations rather than testing only the original allegation.
Distinguish established facts, interpretations, quantified amounts and unresolved questions. Explain what the available evidence does and does not support.
Deliver the agreed findings and supporting schedules. Discuss control improvements and further information needs; legal action and recovery decisions remain with the authorised parties.
A payment appears twice.
Check bank, ledger and invoice references.
Test a reversal, duplicate import or genuine second payment.
State the supported result, amount and unresolved evidence.
A data exception is not, by itself, a finding of fraud; it calls for checking source records and alternative explanations.

The starting information
Share a concise brief first. Once authority and secure handling are agreed, the request list may cover:
Document where records came from, who supplied them, when they were received and how they were handled. Retain original material appropriately and work from controlled copies. Where digital evidence requires specialist collection or integrity verification, agree the qualified provider and method.
The necessary procedures depend on the evidence and intended use; merely labelling a folder “forensic” does not establish reliability.
Limit collection to relevant, lawfully accessible information and agree authorised recipients, storage and retention. Employee, personal and cross-border data need particular care. The UAE Government’s data-protection overview is a starting reference; the applicable regime and lawful basis require case-specific review.
Do not send passwords, private account access or unrelated personal records with an initial enquiry.
Analysis guided by the question
Check source completeness, period coverage, currencies and transaction identifiers. Reconcile extracts to control totals so missing or duplicated data does not create a misleading result.
Depending on the concern, examine duplicate references, unusual journal entries, split payments, vendor changes, approval exceptions or mismatches between invoices and receipts.
Compare an exception with supporting records and authorised explanations. Distinguish amounts verified, amounts estimated and transactions that cannot yet be resolved.
Data analytics helps prioritise review; it does not determine intent or legal guilt. Consider information that challenges the initial allegation as well as information that supports it. Any interviews should be properly authorised and planned with regard to the relevant legal and employment requirements.
Useful, traceable deliverables
Agree the report audience and decision it needs to support before the work starts. A board investigation report, a financial schedule for legal counsel and a formal expert report can have different requirements.
Plan intended use at the outset
Financial analysis can help legal advisers understand disputed transactions and amounts. It does not replace legal representation, determine liability or guarantee a successful claim.
Confirm the relevant forum, appointment process, report format, language and evidential requirements. For example, DIFC Courts Part 31 addresses experts’ duties and court permission for expert evidence. Do not assume that the same procedure applies in every UAE court or arbitration.
Any expert witness or testimony role must be separately assessed for competence, eligibility, independence and the case instructions.
Identify where the company, counterparties and records are located. Access to overseas or third-party information may require local advisers, permissions or legal processes. Agree the necessary specialists and costs rather than assuming that an international connection provides access rights.
Recovery action, freezing assets, employment decisions and regulatory disclosures belong to the responsible legal and authorised decision-making processes.
Scope before price
Fees depend on the entities, periods, data volume, condition of records, testing and reporting needs. Confirm whether specialist technology, translation, legal input or additional interviews are separate. There are no fixed plans for every company.
An initial assessment may establish what can be answered with available records before a wider investigation is commissioned. Agree the scope, deliverables and decision point for each phase, including how changes will be authorised.
Set dates around evidence availability and the intended decision. Identify who receives updates, who can approve additional work and how provisional findings are labelled. No universal completion deadline applies.
Ask who will lead the work, whether they have the relevant competence, how conflicts are checked, how evidence will be handled and what the report may be used for. Compare the proposed procedures and limitations—not just the lowest fee or a claim of guaranteed recovery.
Request a scoped investigation discussion →Practical questions, clear boundaries
A forensic audit is a focused financial investigation into a defined concern, transaction pattern or dispute. It uses accounting analysis and supporting evidence to reconstruct events, assess explanations and report findings. The assignment is not automatically an annual audit, a criminal investigation or a court-appointed expert engagement.
Consider an initial assessment when payments cannot be explained, supplier or payroll records conflict, funds appear to be missing, a credible concern is raised or business partners dispute financial transactions. Start with the concern and available evidence. An irregularity may arise from error or poor controls, so it should not be treated as proof of fraud.
The terms often overlap in business enquiries. Forensic accounting can include reconstructing transactions, tracing funds, analysing disputed balances and quantifying financial loss. A forensic audit commonly describes a focused investigation of financial records. Agree the actual questions, methods, deliverables and intended report use rather than relying on the label alone.
A statutory financial statement audit has an assurance objective concerning the financial statements. Internal audit examines agreed governance, risk and control matters. A forensic assignment focuses on a particular concern or dispute and its financial evidence. None should be presented as a guarantee that every instance of misconduct will be found.
SAIF can assess a financial investigation of the relevant company transactions and supporting records. Define the period, access authority and specific concern first. Testing may compare payments with invoices, purchase approvals, delivery records or payroll information. Conclusions depend on the evidence; the engagement does not assume any individual is guilty.
Identify the authorised contact, describe the concern factually and preserve relevant original records through approved channels. Avoid changing source files or circulating accusations. Agree a secure transfer method and lawful access before sending sensitive data. Ask legal and IT advisers about preservation and employee or third-party information where appropriate.
An accounting engagement does not itself authorise access to private devices, personal accounts or third-party systems. Access must have an appropriate lawful basis and permission. Device imaging, deleted-data recovery and specialist digital forensics need separate technical and legal assessment; do not collect such material informally.
Potential use must be planned with legal counsel and the intended forum. Appointment requirements, expert duties, permission, format, language and evidence handling can differ. A privately commissioned report is not automatically a court-appointed expert report, and admission or acceptance cannot be guaranteed. Confirm these requirements before commissioning litigation-specific work.
No. The evidence may support a concern, explain it differently or remain insufficient for a conclusion. Financial tracing and loss analysis can inform next steps, but recovery depends on legal rights, available assets, decisions by relevant parties and other circumstances. An accountant cannot guarantee recovery or a court outcome.
Fees depend on the questions, transaction volume, systems, entities, periods, record quality, urgency and reporting requirements. Specialist technology, translation, travel or legal input may be separate. SAIF uses a scoped proposal rather than one fixed package; a staged assessment can help determine whether wider investigation is justified.
A narrow review and a multi-entity investigation require different effort. Availability of records, explanations, third-party responses and specialist work affect timing. Agree milestones after the initial assessment and revisit them if the scope changes. Interim findings should state what remains untested or provisional.
A financial review can examine transactions, account balances, distributions and supporting records relevant to a defined dispute. Agree who may instruct the work and access the information, and complete conflict checks. The analysis should not favour a predetermined outcome or substitute for legal advice on ownership, duties or entitlements.
Some accounting analysis can be performed remotely using securely supplied records and agreed access. Physical documents, system evidence, site observations or interviews may require other arrangements. The scope, confidentiality controls, jurisdictions and practical evidence needs determine what is suitable.
An engagement can be assessed for a UAE mainland company, free-zone entity or group. Identify the legal entities, commissioning authority and location of the records. Different data-protection, regulatory or dispute requirements may apply; a free-zone address does not automatically establish permissions or report acceptance.
First identify the gaps and whether the available records can answer the question. Reconstruction may require additional reconciliations or independent supporting documents. Missing evidence must be reported as a limitation, not filled with assumptions or treated as proof of wrongdoing. Wider accounting cleanup may be a separate assignment.
Agree the authorised recipients, secure transfer arrangements, access restrictions, retention and disclosure responsibilities in the engagement. Confidentiality is subject to applicable legal and professional obligations, so absolute secrecy cannot be promised. An accounting engagement does not automatically create legal privilege; discuss privilege with counsel.
The firm must assess conflicts, independence, competence and any risk of reviewing its own work. Some cases need a separate provider or specialist team. Disclose existing audit, accounting and advisory relationships before accepting the assignment.
An agreed follow-up can address identified control gaps such as payment approvals, vendor changes, access rights and reconciliations. Management should assign owners, deadlines and checks for implementation. Recommendations reduce identified risks when properly implemented; they do not eliminate every possibility of fraud.
Start with the concern—not the conclusion
Tell us the company context, the transactions or period in question and the decision you need to make. We will assess the appropriate scope, information and specialist support before accepting the work.
Contact SAIF Chartered Accountants →Please do not include sensitive evidence or allegations about named individuals in an unsecured initial message.