Financial Control Review
in Memphis.
Every control system has a way around it. Watchtower finds yours before an employee does, and tells you which gaps are actually worth closing.
Ask how you would do it, not whether anyone has.
Fraud risk review approaches a finance function the way someone intending to exploit it would. Where could funds be moved without a second signature? Which vendor could be created without independent verification? Which reconciliation is performed by the same person who processes the transactions?
This is not the same as an audit. An audit tests whether recorded transactions are accurate and properly supported. A fraud risk review tests whether the structure could be circumvented, which is a different question and frequently produces a different answer.
The most common finding in mid-sized organizations is concentration. One trusted, long-tenured person holds vendor setup, payment processing and reconciliation because the company grew and nobody revisited the arrangement. Nothing has gone wrong. The structure simply means nothing would be detected if it did.
Conditions that warrant a review
These are structural, not accusations about anyone.
One person controls vendor setup, payments and reconciliation
Growth has outpaced the segregation of duties designed for a smaller company
A long-tenured finance employee who never takes extended leave
Vendor master file additions without independent verification
Manual journal entries and adjustments with limited oversight
An owner or board wanting assurance without accusing anyone
How a control review runs
Process Mapping
We map how money actually moves — approvals, systems, who touches what and where authority concentrates.
Circumvention Testing
Each control examined for how it could be worked around, including through combinations of ordinary permissions.
Vendor & Payment Review
Vendor master file, payment patterns and adjustments examined for the structural signatures of risk.
Prioritized Report
Gaps ranked by exposure with practical remediation proportionate to the size of the finance function.
Why this differs from an audit
Structural, not sampling
We test whether the design could be circumvented, rather than whether a sample of transactions was accurate.
Concentration identified
Where duties have quietly collapsed into one role as the organization grew.
Not an accusation
The review examines structure. Commissioning it does not imply suspicion of anyone, and we frame it that way internally.
Realistic remediation
Proportionate to your size. Segregation advice designed for a large enterprise is useless to a twelve-person finance team.
Financial control reviews, answered.
No, and we frame it deliberately so it does not read that way internally. Structural review is ordinary governance, and it is far better conducted when there is no suspicion than in response to one. Most engagements are commissioned by owners or boards who have no specific concern at all.
No. Forensic accounting investigates suspected fraud that has occurred and quantifies it. This examines whether the structure would permit and detect fraud. If a review surfaces indications something has already happened, we would tell you immediately and help you bring in forensic accounting.
Typically one to two weeks for a mid-sized finance function, most of it process mapping and interviews. Larger or multi-entity operations take longer, and we will scope it against what you actually run.
Concentration of duties in one trusted role, almost always arising from growth rather than from any decision. The second most common is vendor master file access without independent verification, which is the mechanism behind a large share of payment fraud.
Related security & readiness reviews casework
Matters we handle alongside this one.
Find the way around before someone else does.
Tell us the size and shape of your finance function and we will scope a proportionate review.