Thrivikram Dazzlers (TD) is a reputed diamond jewellery merchants in existence for the past two decades. Their jewellery store was located at Chennai and the branch was also operated at Mumbai. TD had been regularly deal

Defalcation by employee of customer Sunil Raina & Co., Delhi Following aspects are to be looked into by the forensic auditor for taking his course of action in detecting the truth. TD and SR should be asked to lodge a complaint with police about the incident taken place of taking delivery of goods by EM from TD by having invoice being made in his name. The employment records of EM available with SR should be seen and must be looked into by whom he was referred for employment. EM's immediate reporting manager needs to be interviewed to understand EM's general conducts during his employment and if there were any issues against him. In order to understand his general conduct, following concerns must be looked into: Did EM keep his Manager in loop when conducting company related transactions? EM's residence needs to be visited to interview few people staying in that area if they know him and his family and their social image. His previous employment certificate should also be verified so as to analyze his conduct. Enquiries should be made to ascertain the service records with the earlier employees of EM in a secret way. It is possible that the earlier employer certificate given by EM to SR is a fake document. If the employer really existed, then it should be investigated whether EM had any history of proved or unproved allegations against him during his employment and why he had left the job. If the previous employer had not given a clean chit to the auditor then find as how the Human Resource Department of SR had hired him. There could be a collusion here with the HR. The authorization letter in SR's letter head should be deeply looked into to find out that whether it is in legitimate company stationery or not? If yes, then a deeper scrutiny of the trial to find out as how EM could get hold of the same, should be investigated. Who signed the same must be seen and authenticity of signature of the person to be verified. If someone other than EM (forged), then here is an accomplice, which should be brought out of records. TD sent a mail to SR asking for confirmation of delivery of goods to EM. This shows that a reasonable precaution was taken by TD prior to supply. Forensic Auditor should find out whether TD send such mail to the official email id of SR or to some other email id mentioned in the "authorization letter" produced by EM. If it is an official email id, then TD is not at fault. If it was be the latter, then it could be a case of sheer negligence on the part of TD, or there could be an accomplice for EM in TD shop. These aspects merit attention and deeper scrutiny. If TD had sent the mail to SR to the official mail id and got back a confirmation mail, who sent it must be investigated. This person is clearly an accomplice of EM. In case of common id, IP address of device from where it is sent to be identified. If this employee gave confirmation based on a superior's order, then it is SR which is at fault. In such cases, any act done by any of its employee (EM) will be construed to be act done by an agent, which is binding on the principal SR. TD cannot be held liable in such a situation. Checking mobile call logs to ascertain whether he has contacted any other employee in either of the companies. The Forensic Auditor by applying the aforesaid course of action can find out the truth of the case for making out a report for TD and SR.