The evidence problem
When money movement, reconciliation or the relationship between financial records needs to be reconstructed.
Independent, source-linked financial reconstruction for POCA confiscation matters, source-of-funds enquiries and complex historic income records. MOLE supports instructed defence solicitors, accountants, specialist advisers and individuals seeking a clear, evidence-based account of transactions, assets and income.
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.
Organise relevant income, bank records, asset movements and supporting documents into traceable schedules for professional assessment. Distinguish known facts, unresolved entries, disputed assumptions and gaps in the source material.
Rebuild income histories from available bank statements, tax records, invoices, accounts, payroll material, trading records and correspondence. Clearly identify periods where documentation is missing or inconclusive.
Follow funds from identified origins through transfers, deposits, purchases and other transactions. Record both supporting and contradictory material, with an audit trail back to each source.
Prepare timelines of business receipts, expenditure, director transactions, inter-account movements, loans and asset acquisitions, subject to the records actually available.
Assemble dated schedules covering acquisition, ownership, disposal and valuation documents for review by lawyers or suitably qualified financial experts.
Work to a defined written instruction and provide reconciliation schedules, transaction references, document indexes and findings that can be independently checked. MOLE does not determine the lawful status of funds, guarantee outcomes or replace legal advice or a court-appointed expert.
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.