LEAD — Family Business Enterprise
All frameworks
Evidence-based examination

Business Forensics™

A structured examination of how decisions, money, authority and information actually move through the enterprise, as distinct from how the organisation believes they move.

Business Forensics™ framework in practice
01Why it exists

Establish fact where suspicion, rumour or unexplained performance loss exists.

Separate deliberate misconduct from structural weakness — most findings are the latter.

Give the promoter group a defensible basis for the decision they must take next.

02The model explained

Decision trails

Who actually decided, on what basis, and what record exists.

Authority and control mapping

Formal authority compared with observed influence.

Value leakage

Where margin, time and opportunity are lost between intent and execution.

Information integrity

Whether leadership receives reality or a version of it.

Behavioural red flags

Patterns that reliably precede loss of control.

Boundary testing

Where family arrangements have been absorbed into business obligations.

How it is applied

  1. 01

    Confidential engagement with the promoter group only, with a defined scope letter.

  2. 02

    Document, transaction and decision-record examination alongside discreet interviews.

  3. 03

    Reporting as evidence and interpretation, clearly separated, never as accusation.

  • —Where findings indicate potential legal exposure, we say so and stop; we are not a substitute for legal or audit process.
  • —The report distinguishes what is evidenced, what is indicated, and what remains unknown.
03Common findings
Shadow Authority
Influence concentrated outside the formal structure.
Filtered Reporting
Leadership receives a version of reality that protects relationships.
Merged Boundaries
Family arrangements absorbed into business obligations without agreement.
04Sample assessment

Indicative scoping questions used to define the examination before any document review begins.

  • 01

    Which three decisions in the last year cannot be traced to a documented rationale?

    Reads: Decision trails

    Open response
  • 02

    Who is consulted informally before a decision is considered safe?

    Reads: Shadow authority

    Open response
  • 03

    Do reported margins reconcile to transaction-level data without adjustment?

    Reads: Information integrity

    Yes / No
  • 04

    Which vendors or customers are connected to family members or ex-employees?

    Reads: Boundary testing

    Open response
05Sample report

Illustrative report — promoter-commissioned examination

38

Decision traceability

44

Information integrity

29

Authority alignment

52

Boundary discipline

Findings

  • —Evidenced: procurement approvals in three categories were routinely granted by a person with no formal authority.
  • —Evidenced: two vendors shared a registered address with a former employee; pricing was 11–14% above comparable quotes.
  • —Indicated, not evidenced: management reporting was adjusted before circulation; source files were unavailable for two periods.

Recommended sequence

  • Restore formal approval authority with system-enforced limits within 30 days.
  • Independent vendor rate review for the three affected categories.
  • Referral to counsel on the vendor findings before any internal communication.

Illustrative composite. Client details are altered and anonymised.

06Case examples

Naming shadow authority

ContextPersistent margin loss with no identifiable operational cause.

WorkDecision-trail examination and authority mapping across procurement.

ImpactApproval authority was restored to formal roles and procurement exceptions became visible.

Restoring information integrity

ContextA board consistently surprised by quarterly results.

WorkReconciliation of management reporting to transaction data and redesign of the reporting chain.

ImpactThe board received a traceable reporting chain and a clearer view of forecast assumptions.