Fraud Investigation Services
We investigate allegations of fraud involving employees, executives or business partners with confidentiality and impartiality; your decision rests on independent, verifiable and defensible findings.
The initial consultation is confidential and without obligation.
When do you need Prosecure?
No fraud happens overnight. 84% of perpetrators show at least one red flag beforehand. A single tip or inconsistency does not mean fraud; one that is ignored grows.
Tip-off or ethics report
A serious report has been received about an employee, executive, customer or business partner.
Financial or operational inconsistency
Unexplained differences in payment, stock, sales, procurement or accounting records.
Suspected employee–supplier relationship
Possible hidden partnership, conflict of interest, kickback or steered procurement.
Abuse of authority
Approval processes are being bypassed, or company resources used beyond their purpose.
Allegation of bribery or corruption
Suspicion of improper payment, gift, benefit or inappropriate relationship.
Risk of evidence loss
Records may be deleted or altered, or the people involved influenced.
If one of these signals sounds familiar: let us discuss your situation in confidence →
Our article: Does fraud happen overnight, or are there early warning signs?
Internal fraud is more common than assumed
Companies lose at least 5% of annual revenue to employee fraud. The picture in Türkiye is no different:
85%
Around 85% of companies detected at least one fraud case in the last two years.
35%
Only 35% of companies carry out fraud risk assessments regularly.
40%
In around 40% of companies the total fraud impact was 5 million TL or more.
50%
Only 50% of cases are detected within the first year.
Sources: ACFE, Occupational Fraud 2026 — Report to the Nations · PwC Türkiye & TEİD, Türkiye Fraud Survey 2026
The greatest risk in fraud is late detection.
A case goes undetected for a median of twelve months. One caught within six months costs $40,000; one that runs past five years, more than $1.1 million. Meanwhile records change, witnesses fade, evidence weakens — and disciplinary and legal decisions become indefensible.
How prepared is your company for these risks?
ACFE fraud triangle: Pressure · Opportunity · Rationalization — plus Process/Records · Conflict of interest · Compliance & Governance; a 0–100 score across six areas.
The question is not only "is there fraud in the organization?" but how exposed the organization is to it. A 21-question preliminary assessment makes the critical risk indicators visible.
21 questions
Structured assessment
~5 minutes
Quick preliminary assessment
Preliminary risk analysis
Starting point for expert work
✓ACFE-aligned · ~5 minutes · downloadable PDF report
The simulator does not replace an investigation; it helps identify risk areas that may require expert examination.
The first steps are critical.
Trust matters; but it is not a control mechanism. When suspicion arises, the first decisions determine how defensible the findings will be.
Preserve the evidence
Prevent relevant documents, devices, system logs and correspondence from being deleted or altered.
Limit the flow of information
Do not spread the allegation unnecessarily; do not alert the people involved at an early stage.
Define an independent scope
Clarify the purpose, authority, information sources and decision mechanism of the investigation.
Our article: Is trust a control mechanism?
How we conduct the investigation
Every engagement is planned according to the nature of the allegation, the structure of the company and the risks at hand. The aim is not to confirm an allegation but to give decision-makers a reliable, defensible basis of findings.
Confidential preliminary assessment
The nature of the allegation, available information, ongoing loss and risk of evidence loss are assessed.
OutputPreliminary assessment note
Scope and investigation plan
Purpose, authority, priorities, information sources, work steps and reporting line are defined.
OutputScope and confidentiality protocol
Evidence preservation and analysis
The integrity of documents, data, records and devices is protected; financial and operational links are examined.
OutputChain-of-custody record
Interviews and verification
Planned interviews are held with the people concerned; statements, documents and transactions are cross-tested.
OutputInterview and verification records
Reporting and action plan
Verified findings, risks, control weaknesses and actionable recommendations are presented to management.
OutputManagement report and action plan
What we deliver at the end of the investigation
The form of reporting depends on the nature of the matter; in every case the aim is for management to see clearly what happened, its impact and the steps available.
Request a preliminary assessment →
If the findings will go to litigation or arbitration: Litigation Support
- Executive summary and verified key findings
- Event chronology with links between the people and transactions involved
- Scope of documents, data and information sources examined
- Assessment of financial and operational impact
- Control weaknesses and systemic risk areas
- A framework of findings supporting disciplinary, legal and management decisions
- Actionable improvement recommendations to prevent recurrence
Fraud investigation or internal audit?
Neither replaces the other. The difference is not one of competence; it lies in the question asked, the predication required, and where the work sits.
Asks whether the system works.
Asks whether the allegation holds up.
Purpose
Internal audit is an independent, objective assurance activity; it evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of the organization’s risk management, control, and governance processes.
A fraud investigation resolves a single allegation on the evidence, from inception to disposition: what happened, who was involved, and the extent of any loss.
Predication
Internal audit needs no predication; it follows a risk-based annual plan, scope is set at the outset, and processes are tested on a sampling basis.
A fraud investigation does not require a formal complaint, but it does require predication, a term of art: the totality of circumstances that would lead a reasonable, professionally trained, and prudent individual to believe that a fraud has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. The same standard sets the limit. No investigation goes beyond the available predication, no step is taken without an articulable factual basis, and the predication is reassessed as the investigation proceeds.
Perspective
Internal audit ties its findings to processes and control weaknesses; establishing an individual’s intent is not the purpose of an assurance engagement.
A fraud investigation works from two perspectives: it seeks to prove both that fraud has occurred and that it has not. A finding of fraud has to stand against every innocent explanation the record supports. Working from both sides is what tests that, and it keeps the investigator objective. An unsubstantiated allegation is itself a finding, and reporting it as one keeps discipline from falling on the wrong person.
Evidentiary threshold
Internal audit works to reasonable assurance that a control is operating effectively; maintaining a chain of custody is not part of its mandate.
A fraud investigation is conducted on the assumption that the matter may end in disciplinary action or in litigation; from first contact, evidence is collected, preserved, and documented accordingly. That record is where any later proceeding starts.
Position
Internal audit reports functionally to the board or its audit committee and administratively to senior management. Reviewing its own reporting line is not prohibited; professional standards treat it as an impairment to objectivity, one that must be disclosed and managed with safeguards.
A fraud investigation conducted outside that reporting line is not subject to that impairment; when an allegation implicates senior management or internal audit itself, position becomes decisive.
Sequence
An inconsistency internal audit turns up is often what starts an investigation; a control weakness the investigation exposes becomes the next item on the audit plan. Whose turn it is depends on where the answer will have to hold up.
Investigative by origin. Evidence-based. Decision-focused.
We handle complex allegations not only from a control perspective but through investigative discipline, risk analysis and management decision-making together.
Every case is run by the founder.
Hasan Alsancak — former head of the Financial Crimes and Aggravated Fraud Units, Turkish National Police (1992–2002); FBI National Academy, 205th Session. 30+ years; Prosecure since 2014. He defines the scope with you, leads the interviews and signs the report.
Not every suspicion leads to the same outcome.
The purpose of an independent investigation is not to confirm the allegation but to establish the truth.
Payment and supply network in an overseas operation uncovered
Following a tip-off, document review, data analysis and employee interviews were conducted together. The people involved, the method used and the financial impact were established with verifiable findings.
Review the case → Allegation not confirmedA serious tip-off was found to be untrue
Financial records, market conditions and management decisions were examined together. The allegations were found to be unsupported, preventing wrongful disciplinary and management decisions.
Review the case → Operational cause identifiedRecord discrepancy confirmed not to be fraud-related
Record differences and field conditions were examined. The findings were determined to stem from operational and seasonal effects, not fraud.
Review the case →For confidentiality, company, sector, individual, amount and country details are withheld; events are anonymized and summarized.
If you are facing a similar situation: let us discuss your situation in confidence →
Suspected fraud rarely comes alone.
A business-partner, asset or litigation dimension may surface during the investigation.
Third-Party Risk Management
Verify the risks around companies, partners and key individuals before you decide — including your supplier's supplier.
Explore the service →
Asset Tracing
Investigate assets, connections and concealment structures before debt recovery and litigation.
Explore the service →
Litigation Support
Defensible findings for disputes, arbitration and litigation, with relationship mapping, event chronology and a source matrix.
Explore the service →Hiring right is the first step in preventing fraud: Background Verification · Know Your Employee™
Common questions about fraud investigation
Basic questions on scope, confidentiality and likely outcomes.
What is a fraud investigation?
What is the difference between a fraud investigation and internal audit?
Why should fraud allegations be investigated by independent experts?
What should be the first step when a fraud allegation emerges?
How is confidentiality maintained during the investigation, and who is informed?
Which documents, records and data can be examined?
How long does a fraud investigation take?
Can the findings be used in disciplinary and legal proceedings?
What is the cost of not investigating a suspicion?
How do we start?
Three steps: a confidential conversation, a short preliminary assessment, a jointly defined scope. Commitment begins only when the scope is approved.
Request a Preliminary Assessment →
The initial consultation is confidential and without obligation. We respond within one business day.
- 1 · Confidential first conversation — We listen to the situation and its urgency; ongoing loss or evidence risk is prioritized.
- 2 · Preliminary assessment note — The nature of the allegation, available information and risks are assessed; a scope proposal is presented.
- 3 · Scope and start — Purpose, authority, information sources and reporting line are agreed; the investigation begins.