Suspected accounting fraud within a business

Ask what behavior is being investigated

A criminal investigation may relate to different actions within the same administration. For example, it may concern a false document, an incorrect declaration or the lack of data that had to be kept. The conditions for criminal liability are not interchangeable. A suspicion that is referred to in an interview as accounting fraud must therefore be reduced to the concrete description in legal documents and the applicable legal provisions.

The Criminal Code contains, among other things, rules on forgery. Tax provisions may also be important. Ask the lawyer what accusation is being made in your case and which period, documents and persons are involved. A large difference in the annual accounts does not in itself prove who created an incorrect document or with what knowledge it was done. It is also not wise to declare a suspected offense itself as an ordinary booking error before the file has been examined.

A retention obligation is different from proof of intent

The Tax Authorities explain which data belong to an administration and which retention periods may apply. A period of seven years is mentioned for basic data, while longer periods exist for certain categories and agreements may be possible for other data. Check the applicable obligation per type of data. A general statement that all pieces can be removed after seven years may therefore fall short. (The tax authorities explain which data belong to an administration and which retention periods may apply)

A shortcoming in the administration does not answer every criminal law question. Investigate separately which standard applied, who was responsible for it and whether the specific accusation also requires some form of intent or another condition. Tax consequences and criminal rules of evidence should not be merged unnoticed. The fact that the inspector corrects a calculation is not automatically a finding of personal guilt for a criminal offense. Conversely, a later correct report does not automatically rule out investigation into previous conduct.

Distinguish between source, booking and end product

An invoice, a general ledger entry and a tax return are different records. Describe how data moved from one step to another. Who provided the source information? Who recorded that information? Who controlled an export and who filed the final declaration? When these steps are lumped together, a name under a final product can be incorrectly treated as the answer to all previous questions.

Create a document matrix with identification, date, transaction involved, version and known action. Add which point is actually disputed: a missing performance, an incorrect amount, another other party or a later change. With digital information, the difference between creation date, file date and transmission date may be relevant. Do not treat technical features as self-evident proofs of authorship; have the meaning of the data examined when a conclusion is based on it.

A job title doesn't tell you who knew what

A director, administrative assistant and external advisor may have different powers and information. An agreement with an accountant does not eliminate all personal responsibility. The name of a director on a contract also does not prove that that director has personally entered every change. Therefore, make it clear which tasks were assigned and how they were actually carried out. Informal changes in practice may deviate from an old job description.

Link the role description to concrete communications and access rights from the relevant period. Also describe which checks were not carried out or which warnings were known. The aim is not to transfer responsibility to someone else, but to have personal involvement assessed precisely. Interests may conflict during an investigation into multiple people. Therefore, discuss who needs independent legal assistance and do not simply share sensitive statements in one joint conversation with all those possibly involved.

A correction must remain recognizable from the original

The rules on storing invoices make it clear that the form and verifiability of data are also important. Digital source data may contain information that is missing from a printout. During an investigation, discuss how original files, accounting exports, and corrections are preserved. A cleaned folder that only contains the latest, improved version can actually make investigating the previous situation more difficult. (rules on keeping invoices)

In the case of a real correction, record what has changed, why, when and based on which source. Allow old data to exist recognisably where necessary and lawful. Get expert help before migrating a system or restoring an administration while an investigation is underway. Restoring business operations and preserving relevant material may require several technical steps. Producing a new version is different from demonstrating what a previous user saw at an earlier time.

Also investigate the content of advice obtained

The sentence my advisor arranged it is too general to assess the role of advice. What question has been asked? What facts and documents did the advisor receive? What was the answer and who made the decision afterward? A written explanation from the relevant period may give a different picture than a memory of a short telephone conversation. Identify missing pieces without filling in the content for that conversation yourself.

Advice may also be on a subject other than the criminal suspicion. An assessment of a tax deduction is not automatically an approval of the authenticity of each underlying invoice. Conversely, it cannot automatically be deduced from a later difference of opinion that earlier conscious action was incorrect. The lawyer needs the content and context to assess the importance. Therefore, share the original question, available information, and response as separate data.

Fictional example: a double invoice after system migration

In a fictional example, a company moves to a different accounting package. An invoice appears twice in an export. The entrepreneur immediately calls this a migration error. But the mere presence of a migration does not explain when both bookings arose, which declaration was made with them or who received a warning. A researcher cannot equate every double registration without that context with a deliberate falsification.

A useful reconstruction preserves the source invoice, the old and new exports, the conversion steps and the relevant communications. The lawyer can have it assessed what is technically verifiable and what conduct is legally reproachable. This fictional example does not guarantee an acquittal. It shows that a cause explanation must fit the concrete difference. A general description of how complicated software can be is less convincing than a verifiable reconstruction of this administration.

A request for information and a suspect interrogation require a personal assessment

The FIOD describes the detection of tax and financial fraud and the role of the Public Prosecution Service. When contacting you, it must be clear in what capacity you are being approached, what is being asked and on what basis. An obligation to keep certain administrative data available does not mean that every personal question must be answered without legal assessment. Conversely, an appeal to a procedural right does not cancel every legal administration or information obligation.

Therefore, seek legal assistance early and submit the requests, invitations or orders received in full. Indicate whether information has already been provided and which discussions have taken place. A search or seizure may also involve data from employees, customers or other companies. Keep a record of what was taken or copied and discuss questions about confidential information through the lawyer. Do not perform your own cleanup because a file may be sensitive.

The version and role matrix in preparation

Create the matrix focused on the period under investigation. A complete archive without explanation does not automatically make the core understandable. Note per row document, version, action, person, available information and source of that determination. Give insecurities their own place. A suspicion about what someone must have known is different from a preserved message that can demonstrate knowledge.

• Accusation: concrete documents, period, conduct and known procedural documents.
• Obligations: type of data, applicable administration obligation and retention period.
• Sources: original invoices, contracts, performance and payment details.
• Versions: exports, corrections, migrations and recognizable time stamps.
• Roles: Actual tasks, access rights, checks and alerts.
• Advice: question, information provided, response and final decision.
• Procedure: requests for information, data already provided and specific questions for the lawyer.

Recovery and criminal assessment are different assignments

It may be necessary to restore an administration or improve a declaration. Also have the criminal law context assessed. The Tax Authorities describe conditions and consequences of voluntary improvement. A correction or payment does not automatically lead to the end of an investigation in every situation. The meaning depends, among other things, on the arrangement, the stage and the concrete facts. So don't promise a solution based on the word repentance alone. (Tax authorities describe conditions and consequences of voluntary improvement)

The most important preparation is a verifiable connection between documents, actions and knowledge. This allows legal assistance to better distinguish between a suspected defect, a technical problem and possible criminal conduct. Use the guide on a FIOD investigation for the broader procedure and the in-depth on forgery for that specific accusation. In the meantime, carefully keep the business operable, without overwriting the researched history or prejudging the outcome of the research.