Hands reviewing printed records and notes at a desk

Kutaisi · written fraud reports

A findings letter that can sit on the table at a claims meeting.

Packetvectorpoint prepares fraud detection reports from the records you already hold: transaction extracts, claim files, payroll runs, and exception lists. Charts and timelines go in the annex. The argument stays in the letter.

Send a case brief

What leaves the office

A bound report, not a login.

Clients come to us when a compliance officer, loss adjuster, or in-house counsel needs a document they can circulate. We do not sell access to a screen. We read the file, draw the exhibits, and write what the pattern supports — and where the file is silent.

Most engagements start with a case brief and a date range. Records arrive as spreadsheets, PDF statements, or claim folders. We work from Level 8, 35 Rustaveli Avenue, Kutaisi 4600, with a briefing by phone or in the reporting room when the draft is ready.

Read what a fraud detection report includes

Quiet office desks with papers ready for review

Flagship work

Fraud detection reporting

For one defined case or a named period of records, we produce a findings letter, visual exhibits (timelines, amount distributions, repeat-payee maps), a methods note, and a list of questions the file could not answer. One revision is included. A short briefing sits on the last working day of the engagement.

Typical timeline: 10–15 working days after a complete records pack. Starting fee from 2,400 GEL, quoted against volume and whether the file is already reconciled.

Scope of the flagship report

Also prepared here

Related reports

When the file is narrower, we write a transaction pattern review, a claims anomaly briefing, a case evidence pack for counsel, or a periodic fraud review on a retained calendar.

See the full list of reports

How a report was used

Two colleagues discussing a printed file across a table

A Kutaisi insurer needed the staged-claim pattern visible before the committee sat.

The loss adjuster had twenty-two claim folders and a suspicion that the same workshop photographs were rotating. We did not visit the workshop. We lined up dates of loss, photo metadata where it existed, and invoice numbering. The exhibit that mattered was a single timeline with four clusters, not a deck of slides.

The reservation from their side, later written in a client note: the report named gaps in the photo files clearly, which made the committee slower to decide — and that delay was the honest cost of an incomplete pack.

More client notes

From the desk

Field notes

All field notes