The evidence problem
When money movement, reconciliation or the relationship between financial records needs to be reconstructed.
Structured historical financial reconstruction using available statements, tax records, invoices, ledgers, correspondence and asset documentation. For defence teams, accountants, businesses and individuals requiring an auditable account of past financial activity.
When money movement, reconciliation or the relationship between financial records needs to be reconstructed.
Bank statements, ledgers, invoices, spreadsheets, payment records and supporting correspondence.
Transaction schedules, counterparties, anomalies, linked documents and source-referenced findings.
Bring together salary, trading receipts, dividends, loans, gifts and other documented sources. Differentiate proven sources from explanations requiring further evidence.
Trace transfers and deposits across identified accounts, recording dates, counterparties, references, matching entries and unresolved discrepancies.
Examine supplied ledgers, bank records, invoices, expense claims, director loan accounts and related-party transactions to reconstruct historic positions.
Assemble evidence of acquisition, funding, beneficial interests, sale proceeds and changes in asset ownership where supported by records.
Deliver source references, transaction schedules, a chronology, reconciliation notes and a qualified findings summary highlighting unresolved gaps. No invented explanations or guaranteed legal outcomes.
Specify the accounts, period, transaction issue or reconciliation question to be tested.
Statements, ledgers, invoices and schedules are converted into a consistent date, amount, reference and counterparty structure.
Transactions are grouped, sequences are followed and claimed explanations are compared with the supplied financial and documentary record.
Unmatched entries, unusual sequences, missing support and inconsistent descriptions are isolated for review.
Any material observation is tied back to the relevant statement, ledger, invoice or supporting document.
A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.
Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.
Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.
A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.
Clear distinction between automated extraction, analytical review points and human-reviewed findings.
Professional evidence work should not hide the route from observation back to source. MOLE outputs are designed around traceability, scope control and explicit limitations.
The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.
Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.
Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.
Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.
Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.
Where the evidence cannot safely establish a proposition, the report should say so explicitly.
Discuss an enquiry with MOLE and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.