In federal criminal cases involving financial misconduct, the question of intent often becomes an area of strong disagreement. But the outcome for the defendant depends on proving this critical element of the crime.. That was certainly true of a recent trial in San Francisco in which I was a defense witness. The alleged crime was pension plan embezzlement, and the jury returned a not guilty verdict after a multi-year legal ordeal for my client.

The defense hinged on a critical question: Did the defendant act with fraudulent intent? As one of the attorneys on the defense team stated after the verdict was secured: “The jury found there were no victims, no loss, and our client had acted in the best interests of his employees at all times.“

This case underscores the importance of narrative and context in financial analysis, especially when the facts themselves are not in dispute.

I was retained to conduct an independent review of the government’s calculations and provide a forensic assessment of the transactions in question. The dataset was massive: more than 32,000 bank transactions over a multi-year period. While the volume of data posed a challenge, the core facts were relatively straightforward. My analysis found that the government’s numbers were mostly accurate, so both sides agreed on how much money flowed between accounts. There was no real debate over the actual numbers.

Where the analysis took on greater significance was in answering the question that the government had largely sidestepped: How were the pension plan funds used? Tracking the flow of funds provided insight into the defendant’s motivations and helped explain the context behind his actions. That narrative (i.e. the story the numbers told) became crucial.

Intent in fraud cases is notoriously difficult to prove. Jurors cannot read minds. They must infer intent from actions and surrounding circumstances.

That is where forensic accounting can play a unique role. Our work isn’t just about the numbers itself. It’s about the story that the numbers tell. By mapping out not just the transactions, but the rationale and necessity behind them, the defense was able to construct a compelling alternative to the prosecution’s theory.

The facts showed that the defendant didn’t steal from the pension plan. He didn’t line his pockets with money that belonged to his employees. He had no intent to defraud anyone.

The defendant borrowed money from the pension plan under financial pressure. The supporting documentation and testimony painted a picture that resonated with the jury. While we can never know exactly what persuaded them to acquit, it seems clear that the focus on intent, combined with the defendant’s testimony about his business and my supporting financial analysis, made a meaningful impact.

The verdict was a just outcome to a case that had dragged on for years. For those of us who work on the defense side of white-collar matters, wins like these are a reminder of why we do this work. Not every allegation is a crime, and the numbers, when properly understood, can speak volumes.