While the focus of the media and public attention has quite rightly been devoted to the terrible impact the Horizon scandal has had on the sub-postmasters, it has been fascinating to see the role of the forensic accountant brought to life in the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

It’s sometimes difficult to explain exactly what it is that I do for a living, but over the last couple of weeks I have had colleagues, friends and neighbours asking me whether “that is what it’s really like”.

In my view the TV producers have done a great job of portraying the skills a forensic accountant needs.  Investigations entail dealing with a wide range of stakeholders, some of whom will be under great stress and require the forensic accountant to be empathetic, fair minded and independent and not afraid to call out things that are not right, even when it is not what the person paying the fees wants to hear.

For me, the evidence that confirmed this was in the second episode, when Bob Rutherford’s role as the Post Office appointed investigator was put under scrutiny by Kay Linnell and Alan Bates.  In response to a challenge as to his expertise, Bob’s response was that it was his job “to prove that guilty looking people are innocent” (or words to that effect).   

In a nutshell that is a great explanation as to how forensic accountants should approach investigations – we turn over as many stones as we can find, seeking evidence to show that there is a legitimate explanation for what might, at first glance, seem illegitimate.  Only when we are satisfied that we have done all we can, will we report our findings, setting out the evidence we have found and facts gathered.  What we do not do is provide opinions as to who may be innocent or guilty, that is not our role and would wholly undermine the credibility of our work.  

Key to the integrity of a forensic accounting investigation is its approach to gathering evidence from multiple sources, including witnesses, IT systems and electronic communications.  For the findings of the investigation to have credibility, such an approach must be independent, have regard to all potential explanations, and not assume that the “guilty looking people” are, in fact, guilty.