About | Forensic Accounting & Fraud Institute

mission

Almost everyone placed to tell you what the records show is either paid out of the answer or conflicted out of the role.

When something surfaces, the instinct is to call the firm that already knows the books, and for an SEC registrant that route closes at the point it matters. Regulation S-X provides that an accountant is not independent where it supplies an expert opinion or other expert service for an audit client, or the client’s legal representative, for the purpose of advocating that client’s interests in litigation or in a regulatory or administrative proceeding or investigation — 17 CFR 210.2-01(c)(4)(x). The carve-out is narrow: the auditor may still give a factual account of work it performed. Past that, much of what is on offer comes from parties with a position in the answer — investigation and asset recovery firms working for a percentage, litigation funders, and the occasional proof of loss assembled by whoever benefits from its size. A disinterested read of what the records actually establish is the thing rarely available, and it is what decides whether any of the rest is worth doing.

The Forensic Accounting & Fraud Institute exists to supply that read, and to make the first hour of it free. Anyone can use the Institute’s concierge at no charge: it asks what surfaced and how it came to light, says plainly what is decaying and how fast, explains what a competent examination would actually examine, and identifies what kind of expertise the matter needs.

The reference material covers three areas, in the order a matter moves through them. How the fraud surfaced, what the auditing standards did and did not require of anyone, and who can retain the forensic accountant without handing the file to the other side. What the records establish about the scheme, and what a witness is permitted to say about them. And what can still be traced, clawed back, allocated among victims, or proved under a policy.

What the Institute does not do is take a position in the outcome. It performs no audits and issues no assurance on anyone’s financial statements. It sells no investigation on contingency, takes no share of any recovery, and accepts no compensation from litigation funders or asset recovery firms. That is not modesty about scope; it is the condition that makes the analysis worth anything.

It will also not tell you that fraud occurred, and neither will the expert you retain if they are bound by the AICPA or ACFE standards. AICPA Statement on Standards for Forensic Services No. 1 ¶10 reserves the ultimate conclusion of fraud to the trier of fact and prohibits a member performing forensic services from opining on it, while expressly permitting opinions on whether evidence is consistent with certain elements. The ACFE Code bars a certified fraud examiner from any opinion on the legal guilt or innocence of any person or party. What survives is nearly everything short of the verdict: the ACFE’s own guidance permits an examiner to conclude that a person misappropriated cash, misrepresented a transaction or concealed funds, and to conclude that each statutory element is satisfied. The finding survives; only the label is withheld. An expert who reaches for the label anyway has given opposing counsel a motion to file and a cross-examination line, which is a better thing to know before retaining anyone than after.

plainly stated

What the Institute is and is not.

The Institute is

A knowledge institution. Plain-language references on how occupational fraud surfaces and who may investigate it, what the records establish about a scheme and what a witness may say about them, and what can still be traced, clawed back or claimed.
Independent of the outcome. The Institute performs no audits, takes no contingency and no share of any recovery, and accepts no compensation from litigation funders or asset recovery firms.
Neutral as to side. It serves the organization and the accused employee, trustee and transferee, insurer and insured, plaintiff-side and defense-side counsel, matter by matter. The records do not change according to who asked.
Free at the point of use. The concierge, the references and the preservation guidance cost nothing and require no account.

The Institute is not

Not an audit firm. It performs no audits, issues no opinion on anyone’s financial statements, and holds no attest relationship with any party. That also means it never runs into the bar that closes this route for an audit firm: under 17 CFR 210.2-01(c)(4)(x) an accountant is not independent where it provides expert services advocating an audit client’s interests in litigation or a regulatory proceeding, though it may still give a factual account of work it performed.
Not a finding of fraud. Nothing here concludes that fraud occurred, that a named person took anything, or that an auditor fell below the standard of care. Naming what an examination asks is not the same as performing one, and the ultimate conclusion is reserved to a trier of fact in any event.
Not a damages calculation. What the records establish is ours. What the loss is worth belongs to our Economic Damages Institute and, ultimately, to a retained expert. That is a boundary drawn by question and not by profession — the CFF and MAFF bodies of knowledge both include damages work, and the same firm very often does both halves.
Not a party to your matter. Using this site creates no attorney-client, accountant-client or expert relationship, and concierge conversations are neither privileged nor confidential. In most jurisdictions there is no accountant-client privilege at all. Do not put account numbers, employee names, interview memoranda or privileged material into it.

How the Institute sustains itself

The orientation and the reference material are free and stay free. Where a party wants the examination scoped and performed properly — ideally before the account has run down, and before anyone has committed to a theory in a pleading — that is a private engagement billed as a fixed fee agreed in writing before any work begins.

Where a matter requires a retained testifying expert, for an investigative opinion, a tracing analysis, or a review of someone else’s proof of loss, the Institute arranges the engagement through its expert network and is compensated for that work.

The Institute performs no audits, takes no contingency and no share of any recovery, and accepts no compensation from litigation funders or asset recovery firms. No sponsorship, no referral fee, no affiliate arrangement, no paid placement. The profession draws the same line for its own: SSFS No. 1 ¶9 bars a member engaged as an expert witness in a litigation engagement from providing opinions under a contingent fee arrangement, save where the AICPA Code expressly permits one. The reason is not decorum. An investigator paid out of what is found has an interest in finding it, and anyone who has cross-examined one knows where that goes.

We publish this because the people reading it cross-examine for a living or adjust claims for a living and should not have to guess.

leadership

Leadership.

Announcement · September 2026

Russ Rosenzweig named Executive Director of the Institute

Russ Rosenzweig was named Executive Director of the Forensic Accounting & Fraud Institute in September 2026. He was one of the pioneers of the expert witness industry and has decades of experience helping clients understand complex technical disputes and connecting them with the right experts and knowledge bases.

He founded the first expert witness search and referral firm in 1993 and led it for three decades, connecting thousands of attorneys, insurers and companies with specialized experts. His clients have included most of the largest law firms in the United States.

Fraud matters are a deceptive version of the matching problem he has worked on throughout that career, because the credentials look interchangeable and are not. CFF requires an active CPA license; CFE requires no accounting license and no particular field of study; MAFF requires neither; ABV, CVA and ASA are valuation designations rather than investigative ones. A buyer screening on letters alone can retain an investigator with no standing to opine on accounting treatment, or a valuer who has never handled evidence, and not learn the difference until the deposition. Three decades of watching which combinations hold up under cross-examination is the relevant experience here.

B.A., Northwestern University · M.B.A., University of Chicago Booth School of Business

the network

The specialists behind the answers.

Fraud matters rarely sit inside one discipline. An opinion on accounting treatment needs a CPA whose license makes it credible. A contested investigation needs someone who has actually taken interviews, controlled evidence and defended a scope decision under cross-examination. Tracing through commingled accounts needs an analyst who can justify an allocation convention against the transaction record rather than run a favourite one, and on-chain work needs a methodology that has already survived a challenge. A fidelity claim needs someone who has worked the insurer’s side of a proof of loss. What the loss is worth is a different question again, frequently answered by the same firm and often by the same witness, but resting on a different body of method.

The Institute draws on a working network built over thirty years across those fields, and engages specialists matter by matter; they remain independent. Its role is to work out what the matter actually requires and then find the right person, including saying when the answer is a discipline it does not itself cover.

An advisory council of forensic accountants, fraud examiners, insolvency practitioners and coverage counsel is being convened and will be named here.

standards

The rules this site holds itself to.

No share of what is recovered

No contingency, no percentage of any recovery, and no compensation from litigation funders or asset recovery firms. SSFS No. 1 ¶9 draws the same line for AICPA members giving expert opinions in litigation, and for the same reason: an investigator paid out of what is found has an interest in finding it.

The perishable thing comes first

Where a visitor describes money that has already moved, the concierge raises what is decaying before it discusses anything else. Where the lowest intermediate balance rule governs, the traceable claim is capped at the lowest balance the account reached afterward, and later deposits do not restore what was spent. Bank Secrecy Act records generally need only be retained five years — 31 CFR 1010.430(d) — which is a practical floor on how far back a scheme can be reconstructed, though many institutions keep records longer.

No finding of fraud

The Institute explains what an examination asks and what evidence it needs. Whether fraud occurred is for a trier of fact, and an expert bound by the AICPA or ACFE standards is barred from stating it. What those standards do permit — an opinion on whether the evidence is consistent with particular elements, and conclusions about conduct — is where this site stops as well.

Neutral as to side

Organization and accused employee, trustee and transferee, insurer and insured. The records do not change according to who asked, and an institution that only reached convenient conclusions would be worth consulting from neither side.

Claims with a date on them

The fraud standards are mid-overhaul. SAS No. 151 was approved on 19 August 2026 and is effective for periods ending on or after 15 December 2028, with AU-C 240 operative until then and PCAOB AS 2401 governing public-company audits throughout. Survey figures move with every edition. Anything stated here carries the source it rests on and the year it came from.

Corrections

Errors, once known, get fixed — including inherited ones. This field circulates confident claims that do not survive a read of the source, among them the widely repeated statement that Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1 (1924), established the lowest intermediate balance rule. The opinion never states that rule, and refused to apply the analogous trust presumption on the facts before it. If something on this site is wrong, tell the Institute and it will be reviewed and corrected.

Why this institute exists.