Preserving evidence is the paramount first step in any fraud investigation with potential legal ramifications. It ensures the integrity of the investigation for both internal purposes and any subsequent criminal or civil proceedings. Confronting the suspect, public relations, or termination should only occur after a proper evidence preservation and investigation plan is in place to avoid spoliation of evidence or claims of wrongful termination.

Courts have consistently held that employees generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in communications made on company-owned email systems, especially when a policy exists notifying them of monitoring. The purpose of the monitoring (security, fraud, etc.) is less critical than the fact that monitoring was disclosed, defeating a privacy claim. This makes the evidence likely admissible in a civil proceeding.

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The CFO consulting outside counsel for legal advice on a potential crime fits this precisely. Communications with in-house counsel may be protected but can be complex; merely providing factual data isn’t seeking legal advice. Communications with non-attorneys (HR, the board, or a consultant) are not covered, unless the consultant is a necessary agent of the attorney for legal advice (which requires specific protocols).

For fraud claims, the statute of limitations typically begins to run from the date the fraud was discovered or, through reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (the “discovery rule”). It does not necessarily start at the date of the last wrongful act or the date of termination. The company’s internal investigation and insurance negotiations do not typically toll (pause) the statute, making the discovery date the critical trigger.

A Bill of Particulars is a formal request by the defense for the prosecution to provide greater specificity about the charges. An indictment can be broad. This tool helps the defense understand the precise nature of the accusations (e.g., specific dates, transactions, methods) to prepare an adequate defense and avoid unfair surprise at trial. It is not a motion to dismiss or a challenge to the law itself.

Expert witnesses form opinions based on data provided to them. Acknowledging this is honest and defensible. The key professional phrasing is “…which I have assumed to be authentic for the purpose of forming my opinions.” This follows standard expert witness practice, as experts typically rely on facts and data provided by others (e.g., attorneys) without independently verifying every source’s authenticity, unless that is part of their assignment. It maintains credibility and avoids argumentative or evasive answers.

The economic loss doctrine generally prohibits recovery in tort (e.g., fraud) for purely economic losses arising from a contractual relationship, where the alleged duty breached is one created by the contract itself. The plaintiff must show an independent duty in tort (like a duty not to make fraudulent misrepresentations) that exists separate from the contractual duties. If the misrepresentation is about the core contractual performance, the doctrine may limit the plaintiff to contractual remedies.

The “Upjohn Warning” (or corporate Miranda) is critical. It informs the employee that (1) the company’s attorneys represent the company, not the employee; (2) the conversation is protected by the company’s attorney-client privilege; (3) the company holds that privilege and may choose to disclose the conversation to regulators or others. This protects the company’s privilege and manages expectations. While recording and having witnesses can be useful, they are secondary to this fundamental legal safeguard.

A prejudgment attachment is a provisional remedy. Its purpose is to secure the property or asset so that it remains available to satisfy a potential future judgment. It does not transfer ownership or determine rights; it simply restricts the defendant’s ability to dispose of the asset during the litigation (“freezes” it). This prevents the defendant from making themselves judgment-proof by hiding or selling assets before the case concludes.

Preserving evidence is the paramount first step in any fraud investigation with potential legal ramifications. It ensures the integrity of the investigation for both internal purposes and any subsequent criminal or civil proceedings. Confronting the suspect, public relations, or termination should only occur after a proper evidence preservation and investigation plan is in place to avoid spoliation of evidence or claims of wrongful termination.0