A trucking company was transporting a load of goods picked up in Manitoba for delivery to the Montreal area. The driver parked the loaded trailer in an unsecured yard over the weekend but, when he returned Monday to complete the delivery, the trailer was gone. The lock securing it had been cut and was found lying on the ground.
On the surface, it looked like a straightforward cargo theft like so many other thefts occurring these days. A stolen trailer, a missing load and an apparent financial loss. But rather than accepting the circumstances and supporting documents at face value, we started looking at the people and businesses behind the claim.
One of the first things we discovered was that the driver had a business interest in the company from which the trailer had been rented—something he denied. That immediately raised questions about whether the parties involved were as independent as they appeared.
We requested invoices identifying the contents and purported value of the missing cargo. But an invoice only tells you what someone claims was shipped and what they claim it was worth. Our due diligence into the shipping company revealed that the driver was also a registered principal of that business.
We then examined the Manitoba address where the goods had supposedly originated. Property research established another connection: the driver owned that property as well.
What appeared to involve separate unrelated parties—a driver, a trailer-rental company, a shipper and a cargo pickup location—was increasingly leading back to the same individual. Further scrutiny of the cargo and its purported value also raised serious questions about the invoices supporting the claim. Ultimately, the claimed cargo was effectively not worth the paper the invoices were printed on.
What began as an investigation into a stolen trailer had uncovered indicators of a much broader insurance-fraud scheme involving multiple aspects of the claimed loss. The driver potentially stood to benefit from the loss of a trailer in which he had a business interest while also advancing a claim involving cargo whose shipper, point of origin and purported value could all be connected back to him.
There was no single sophisticated technique that broke the case open. It was straightforward due diligence—corporate research, property research, document verification and connecting information that, viewed separately, might have appeared insignificant.
Documents can tell you what someone wants you to believe. Due diligence helps determine whether the story behind those documents is true.
If you’ve dealt with a suspicious commercial loss or fraud claim, what was the first detail that made you question the story?
Explore the investigative services used to uncover the facts in this case:
