Banking litigation is decided more and more on technical evidence: the signature on the contract, the onboarding selfie, the access to the account, the path of the Pix transfer. Forensic examination turns those doubts into verifiable facts.
Each question has its own examination. For the bank, the fintech, the customer or the merchant, the technical answer is the same.
The customer denies signing the contract or the payroll-deducted loan. Comparison with genuine specimens from the same period shows whether it came from the account holder's hand.
The CCB (Cédula de Crédito Bancário, the bank credit note) is the instrument that formalises the loan, today increasingly signed on a phone. The evidence lies in the selfie, the biometrics, the device, the IP address and the audit trail. The examination checks whether that set points to the customer.
The customer signs the contract, receives the funds in their own account and later alleges a scam. In most cases the recipient is involved, but there are exceptions. Examining before enforcing avoids suing someone who was also a victim and later answering for moral damages.
Intrusion, account takeover, an employee helping from inside, money scattered across money-mule accounts. The examination reconstructs the access and follows the money, for the MED (Pix's special refund mechanism), subscriber data disclosure and actions against the receiving institutions.
Receivables backed by false documents, POS receipts (the card terminal slip) printed to charge for a sale that never happened, recordings used to authorise the advance of receivables.
Sanctioning proceedings with digital evidence, incidents the institution must explain, insider trading proven through communications and traces on corporate devices. The examination gives technical support to the filings and reports the institution submits to the Banco Central do Brasil (BACEN) and the CVM, the Brazilian securities regulator.
A merchant sued a card acquirer that had been charging him, for more than a year, a high fee for the advance of receivables. The authorisation was in a recording: an employee of the acquirer said he was at the shop and handed the call to the "merchant", who accepted the fee.
Compared with the specimen collected from the merchant, the voice was not his. And it resembled that of the employee who was on site.
The examination concluded that the employee himself simulated the merchant's voice to approve the advance, possibly to meet targets.
A multimillion fraud against a financial institution was scattered across thousands of money-mule accounts. The analysis separated mules paid on commission, decoy accounts and accounts opened improperly. The expert report allowed funds to be recovered through the MED and grounded civil actions against the receiving institutions, to identify the account holders.
See also
Financial Fraud and Payment Systems Forensics → Forensic Handwriting and Questioned Document Examination → Electronic Signatures and Digital Contracts → Fingerprint Examination → Forensic Phonetics and Voice Examination →