The evidence problem
When money movement, reconciliation or the relationship between financial records needs to be reconstructed.
Typical material
Bank statements, ledgers, invoices, spreadsheets, payment records and supporting correspondence.
Reviewable output
Transaction schedules, counterparties, anomalies, linked documents and source-referenced findings.
Normalise the data
Create a consistent schedule of dates, amounts, references and counterparties.
Group related transactions
Look for recurring references, counterparties and sequences.
Connect supporting documents
Link payments to the records that explain or contextualise them.
METHOD
How this analysis is carried out.
1. Define the financial question
Specify the accounts, period, transaction issue or reconciliation question to be tested.
2. Normalise the records
Statements, ledgers, invoices and schedules are converted into a consistent date, amount, reference and counterparty structure.
3. Trace and reconcile
Transactions are grouped, sequences are followed and claimed explanations are compared with the supplied financial and documentary record.
4. Identify exceptions
Unmatched entries, unusual sequences, missing support and inconsistent descriptions are isolated for review.
5. Source-check material points
Any material observation is tied back to the relevant statement, ledger, invoice or supporting document.
DELIVERABLES
What a professional output should contain.
Evidence register
A structured record of the material actually reviewed, suitable for audit and later cross-reference.
Source-linked findings
Material observations presented with enough source information to locate the supporting record.
Chronology / analytical schedule
Where relevant, events, transactions, comparisons or issues arranged into a practical working schedule.
Evidence gaps and limitations
A separate record of missing material, ambiguity, assumptions and points that cannot safely be concluded from the supplied evidence.
Review status
Clear distinction between automated extraction, analytical review points and human-reviewed findings.
MOLE REPORT STANDARD
Precise enough to be checked.
Professional evidence work should not hide the route from observation back to source. MOLE outputs are designed around traceability, scope control and explicit limitations.
Question first
The report states what was asked, what material was supplied and what falls outside the review.
Source-linked
Material observations are linked to identifiable source records rather than presented as unsupported assertions.
Fact, inference, limitation
Extracted facts, analytical observations, unresolved points and limitations are kept distinguishable.
Review before reliance
Automated signals remain review points until checked against the underlying material.
Dated and controlled
Reports can be versioned so later evidence or corrections do not silently overwrite the earlier analytical record.
No inflated claims
Where the evidence cannot safely establish a proposition, the report should say so explicitly.
CLIENT EVIDENCE ROOM
Keep the brief, evidence, reports and billing together.
Open a secure MOLE case and track exactly what has been requested and delivered.
Scope: MOLE provides evidence analysis and investigative support. Automated intelligence points require human review. MOLE does not currently claim accredited device acquisition, deleted-data recovery or laboratory computer/mobile examination.