find new evidence in the above case other than the ones already stated below with the likely hood of it being ruled and the rationale. 

 

Transcribed Image Text:

CASE You are a forensic investigator in public practice and have been engaged to assist a publicly listed construction contractor BrickLays Constructions Ltd (BrickLays) in a forensic investigation of allegations of an improper relationship between a BrickLays project manager (Thomas Dale) and a sub-contract builder (Matthew Lewis, through his company 'Matthew's Walls Pty Ltd'). The allegations are based on statements of one of Dale's colleagues who has come forward and who alleges that he has over-heard several mobile telephone conversations between Dale and Lewis in which there is discussion of a renovation project at Dale's holiday house. A preliminary investigation has found that Dale has awarded a disproportionate number of building projects led by BrickLays to Matthew's Walls for the last two years valued at more than $4.5 million and that, in the case of every project delivered by Matthew's Walls, there are significant overruns that have been approved by Dale. BrickLays has launched civil action against both Dale and Matthew's Walls claiming compensation in an amount equivalent to what it claims has been overpaid for the work done. You have been appointed to investigate this case forensically. Q. What would you consider as evidence in the investigation of this matter? What would be the soul that evidence and how would that evidence support the investigation? Font CASE You are a forensic investigator in public practice and have been engaged to assist a publicly listed construction contractor BrickLays Constructions Ltd (BrickLays) in a forensic investigation of allegations of an improper relationship between a BrickLays project manager (Thomas Dale) and a sub-contract builder (Matthew Lewis, through his company 'Matthew's Walls Pty Ltd'). The allegations are based on statements of one of Dale's colleagues who has come forward and who alleges that he has over-heard several mobile telephone conversations between Dale and Lewis in which there is discussion of a renovation project at Dale's holiday house. A preliminary investigation has found that Dale has awarded a disproportionate number of building projects led by BrickLays to Matthew's Walls for the last two years valued at more than $4.5 million and that, in the case of every project delivered by Matthew's Walls, there are significant overruns that have been approved by Dale. BrickLays has launched civil action against both Dale and Matthew's Walls claiming compensation in an amount equivalent to what it claims has been overpaid for the work done. You have been appointed to investigate this case forensically. Q. What would you consider as evidence in the investigation of this matter? What would be the soul that evidence and how would that evidence support the investigation? Font

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In the investigation of the allegations involving the improper relationship between Thomas Dale a project manager at BrickLays Constructions Ltd and Matthew Lewis of Matthews Walls Pty Ltd its essenti... View the full answer