Full reasoning chain
Every conclusion carries its reasoning and a citation to the source document, with agent actions and human overrides recorded in sequence.
Solution · Vendor Fraud
The invoice that nobody questioned.
Fictitious vendors, duplicate and split invoicing, inflated pricing, kickbacks and diverted payments. Each one is defensible on its own document. The pattern only appears when the vendor master, the invoice population and the approval record are read together.
VendorsPaymentsFinding
The work
What the file
actually takes.
The allegation is usually narrow — one vendor, one manager, one period. The population that has to be tested to prove or disprove it is not, and the finding has to survive an internal committee and, potentially, a court.
01
Referral
An audit finding, a control exception, a report or a scheduled review opens the file — and the scope is set: which vendors, which period, which entities.
02
Population
The vendor master, the invoice population, payment records and approval history are gathered and indexed.
03
Testing
Duplicate and near-duplicate invoices, sequential numbering, approval thresholds approached but never crossed, and pricing tested against comparable spend.
04
Relationships
Vendor ownership resolved against registries, then tested for overlap with employee, director and related-party records.
05
Findings
The determination, the evidence behind each finding, the control failures that allowed it, and the actions your policy mandates.
Where the agents run
Plan. Examine. Report.
The same three agents run this case type as run every other. What differs is the policy behind them — the plan template, the dimensions scored, the tools available, and the report that comes out.
One invoice proves nothing.
Every element of a vendor scheme survives inspection on its own. An invoice under the approval limit is normal. A change of bank details is normal. A vendor sharing an address with an employee is a coincidence — until it is put next to the other two. RiskPulse reads the whole population and reports the combination, with the underlying document attached to each finding.
- Population testing — duplicates, near-duplicates, sequential numbering, and thresholds approached but never crossed
- Payment integrity — changes to bank details read against the payments that follow them
- Related-party overlap — vendor ownership resolved against registries and tested against employee, director and related-party records
- Control failure mapping — where the process should have caught it, and why it did not
RiskPulse · Case record
Policy for this case type
Configured,
not hardcoded.
Nothing on this page is fixed in the product. Every element below is a policy setting you define, which is why the same platform runs this case type and the others.
- Domain
- Procurement and vendor investigations — with its own matter types, from fictitious vendors to duplicate payment and kickback matters.
- Risk dimensions
- Defined per matter type; a duplicate payment matter scores differently from a suspected kickback.
- Plan template
- Matter type drives the scoping questions, the population pulled, and the tests that must run against it.
- Report template
- Your investigation report format, including the findings ranking and the actions your policy mandates.
Controls
Defensible
after the fact.
The same governance and quality controls apply to this case type as to every other — because an examiner does not lower the standard for the harder files.
Quality control
Sampling built in
A sampling methodology sits behind this case type, so your quality team can assess a representative sample rather than reviewing at random.
Quality assurance
Independent assessment
A separate set of agents assesses case quality end to end against your methodology — a second opinion on the work.
See it on your own file
Bring a real case.
We’ll show you the workflow.
Pick a real file or a closed case and see how RiskPulse plans it, evidences it, and writes it up under your policy.
Request Demo