Global Jurisdiction Coverage & Report Standards
Fraud Loss Expert is a global forensic accounting and financial expert witness firm specialising exclusively in the quantification of financial loss arising from fraud — including financial fraud, investment fraud, corporate fraud, embezzlement, and cyber fraud. We serve law firms, insurers, corporations, and individual fraud victims worldwide.
Fraud schemes are rarely confined to a single jurisdiction. We provide expert witness services across the United Kingdom, United States, European Union, and international arbitration forums — with reports prepared to the procedural and evidential standards of each forum. Examples of claim value are expressed in £/$ where dual-currency framing assists instructing parties.
United Kingdom
- High Court — King's Bench Division and Chancery Division
- Crown Court — fraud and asset recovery proceedings
- CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 compliant expert reports
- Serious Fraud Office (SFO) proceedings
- County Court and Court of Appeal fraud quantum work
United States
- Federal and state civil fraud proceedings
- Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert standard
- SEC and CFTC enforcement proceedings
- FINRA arbitration
- Department of Justice civil and criminal fraud matters
European Union
- Major civil law jurisdictions — France, Germany, Netherlands
- Cross-border fraud recovery proceedings within the EU
- Coordination with local counsel on civil law expert evidence requirements
- European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) related proceedings
International Arbitration
- ICC, LCIA, SIAC, AAA/ICDR arbitration
- Investment treaty arbitration (ICSID)
- Cross-border fraud asset recovery in arbitral proceedings
- Expert evidence under IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
Expert Report Requirements by Jurisdiction
CPR Part 35 — England & Wales
Under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 35 and Practice Direction 35, an expert's duty is to the court, overriding any obligation to the instructing party. Expert reports must comply with PD 35 paragraph 3.2, including a statement of truth, details of the expert's qualifications and experience, the substance of all material instructions, and the methodology applied. Reports must state the facts and assumptions upon which the opinions are based, and the reasons for those opinions. Where a range of opinion exists, the expert must summarise the range and give reasons for their own opinion.
In fraud loss quantification proceedings, the expert report must clearly separate proven loss from estimated loss, disclose the tracing methodology used, and address the legal test for recoverable loss in the relevant cause of action. Joint statements and Single Joint Expert appointments follow the same procedural framework.
Daubert & Federal Rule of Evidence 702 — United States
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is admissible where the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and the expert has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Daubert standard requires the court to assess whether the expert's methodology has been tested, subjected to peer review, has a known or potential error rate, and enjoys general acceptance in the relevant field.
Fraud loss quantification reports for US proceedings must demonstrate that the forensic accounting methodology applied — fund tracing, counterfactual analysis, lost profits calculation — meets the Daubert reliability standard. State courts may apply Frye or modified Daubert standards; reports are tailored to the forum's specific admissibility requirements.
International Arbitration Standards
International arbitration tribunals generally apply the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration as a guide to expert evidence. Expert reports should be independent, address the issues defined in the terms of reference, and comply with any procedural timetable set by the tribunal. Major institutions — ICC, LCIA, SIAC, and AAA/ICDR — each have procedural rules governing expert evidence exchange, and reports are prepared accordingly.
In investment treaty arbitration under ICSID, expert evidence on quantum of loss must address the applicable treaty standard for compensation — typically the fair market value of the investment immediately before the breach, or the value immediately before the breach became publicly known. Fraud loss quantification in this context requires careful alignment between the forensic accounting analysis and the applicable treaty and customary international law principles.
Need a jurisdiction-compliant fraud loss report?
Tell us the forum, stage of proceedings, and fraud typology — we will respond within one business day.
Instruct a fraud loss expert