home  /  recovery & remedies
department of recovery & remedies

undefined

Establishing what happened and recovering anything are separate projects. The second runs on a claim that gets weaker every week nobody works on it.

begin here

What did you find, and how did you find it?

Start a conversation with the Forensic Concierge, already scoped to recovery & remedies. Select a subject area to prompt it, or describe the matter directly.

Forensic Conciergerecovery & remedies · orientation, not a finding of fraud
Tell me roughly what moved, through which accounts, and when — and who is asking: counsel, a trustee or receiver, or an insurer. I will help you see which doctrine governs and where traces of this kind usually stop. I will not tell you whether the money can be found, what a claim is worth, or whether anyone committed fraud.

Stage three is where the money is, and it is governed by a rule most litigators meet too late. A federal court generally has no authority to enjoin a defendant from disposing of assets pending adjudication of a claim for money damages — Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) — so the power to reach specific property comes from an equitable claim over property that can be identified: a constructive trust, an equitable lien, restitution. Tracing is what supplies it. That is the commercial reason this work is bought, and it fixes the sequence: trace first, freeze second, and both before the account runs down. The same stage carries two buyers almost nobody writes for — trustees and receivers dividing a fund that already exists, and insurers testing an insured’s proof of loss.

specialization areas

The three ways value actually comes back

They run on different records, different rulebooks and different buyers, and the first usually decides whether the other two have anything to work with.

methodology

How this department investigates.

The work that stands between a finding and a recovery.

Allocation convention selectionChoosing among FIFO, LIFO, pro rata and the lowest intermediate balance rule, and recording why the others were rejected.
Deposit-item productionObtaining the instruments deposited rather than only the statements, because a statement does not show where a deposit came from.
Cross-border processLetters rogatory, section 1782 and the English disclosure orders — the routes a private litigant actually has.
Investor ledger reconstructionCash in and cash out per claimant, which is the input every distribution method is computed from.
Distribution comparisonRunning rising tide against net investment on the same fund so the difference is visible before it is argued.
Proof-of-loss testingSeparating what an insured can evidence from what it believes it lost, transaction by transaction.
common questions

Recovery & Remedies — common questions

If we are going to win the case anyway, why does tracing matter?

Because winning and collecting are different problems, and the tools for the second are narrower than most people expect. Under Grupo Mexicano a federal court generally cannot freeze a defendant’s assets to secure a money claim where the plaintiff asserts no lien or equitable interest in them. The recognized path around that bar runs through equity: where money or property belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff can be traced to particular funds or property in the defendant’s hands, restitution in equity — typically a constructive trust or an equitable lien — is available. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 213 (2002). The Second Circuit applied that line again in Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Advantage Capital Holdings LLC, 171 F.4th 155 (2d Cir. 2026). Prejudgment attachment under Rule 64 and state law is a separate route, and it turns on statutory findings rather than on tracing.

How long do we have?

Less than the limitation period suggests, because three different clocks run at once. The traceable claim itself decays: where the lowest intermediate balance rule governs — as it commonly does in bankruptcy and trust tracing — the recoverable amount is capped at the lowest balance the account reached after the tainted deposit, and later deposits do not restore what was spent. The records decay: Bank Secrecy Act records generally must 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. And one statutory shortcut expires fast: 18 U.S.C. § 984 lets the government forfeit identical fungible property in the same account without tracing at all, but only if the action is brought within a year of the offense. None of that is a reason to rush a bad analysis. It is a reason not to leave the first one until year two.

Is any of this a damages calculation?

No, and the distinction is by question rather than by profession — which matters, because the profession does both. The AICPA’s Certified in Financial Forensics body of knowledge lists economic damage calculations among its specialized areas, NACVA’s MAFF lists commercial damages and lost profits alongside fraud investigations, and the same practitioner very often writes both reports. What separates them is the question asked. Tracing identifies whether a dollar in an account is that dollar. Allocating a recovered fund divides a pot that exists. Direct depletion under a fidelity policy is measured against the policy’s own definition of loss. None of those requires assuming a world in which the conduct never happened, which is what a damages model does, and which our Economic Damages Institute covers.

Can you tell us whether the money can be found?

No — and any site that says otherwise is selling something. What can honestly be described in advance is where traces stop, because the stopping points are structural rather than a matter of effort. The lowest intermediate balance caps what remains identifiable. Bank Secrecy Act retention limits how far back the primary records reliably exist. Mutual legal assistance treaties run government to government and are unavailable to private civil litigants. Correspondent cover payments sent before the MT202COV format took effect in November 2009 carried no fields for the underlying originator or beneficiary at all, so the intermediaries settling them could not see who was paying whom. Suspicious Activity Reports carry an unwaivable privilege. What a competent scoping conversation produces is a realistic picture of which of those walls a particular matter runs into, and how early.

Who actually retains this work?

Four channels, with genuinely different economics. Counsel in civil disputes, where a trace is what converts an unsecured claim into something a court can secure. Bankruptcy trustees and equity receivers, whose entire docket is avoidance actions and the division of a recovered fund, and who buy the same analysis repeatedly across hundreds of claimants. Insurers, sureties and their adjusters, who retain an accountant to test an insured’s proof of loss rather than to build a case. And prosecutors and defense counsel, where loss under the sentencing guidelines and restitution are computed from records by the same discipline. The vocabulary shifts between them — traceable interest, avoidable transfer, direct loss, actual loss — but the underlying exercise is the same one performed against the historical record.

Trace first. The claim does not recover on its own.

Describe the accounts and roughly when the transfers ran. The Institute will help you see which rules govern and where traces of this kind usually stop.

forensic conciergeorientation · not a finding of fraud
Tell me roughly what moved, through which accounts, and when — and who is asking: counsel, a trustee or receiver, or an insurer. I will help you see which doctrine governs and where traces of this kind usually stop. I will not tell you whether the money can be found, what a claim is worth, or whether anyone committed fraud.