Inquest Global

Corporate Investigation Case Study

A mid-sized manufacturing company received an anonymous complaint through its internal reporting channel. Read More

We agreed the scope with the company’s legal counsel and CFO. Read More

Corporate filings showed that one of the vendor’s directors was a close family relative of the procurement manager. Read More

The company had clear evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest and what it had cost. Read More

The Concern

A mid-sized manufacturing company received an anonymous complaint through its internal reporting channel. It said a senior procurement manager was steering contracts towards one particular vendor.

The complaint was short and offered no evidence. An internal review found nothing unusual. The vendor was approved, its invoices matched purchase orders and its prices were within budget.

Leadership faced a familiar dilemma. If they ignored the complaint, a real problem could keep growing. If they acted without facts, they could damage a trusted employee’s career and their own credibility.

The manager was senior and well connected across the business, so an internal inquiry would have been hard to keep confidential. Its conclusions could also have been questioned as too lenient or too harsh. The company engaged InQuest Global to give an independent, impartial view, so it could know what was true before deciding what to do.

What We Did

1. Defined the question

We agreed the scope with the company’s legal counsel and CFO. Was there a conflict of interest? Had procurement decisions been influenced? If so, what had it cost the company? Only a small group knew about the engagement.

2. Reviewed the records

We went through [three years] of procurement records, vendor onboarding files, bid comparisons and approval workflows.

3. Looked behind the vendor

We ran lawful public-record and corporate registry checks on the vendor’s ownership and directors.

4. Tested the pricing

We benchmarked the vendor’s prices against comparable suppliers and market rates. Each order looked reasonable alone, so we looked at the pattern over time.

5. Ensured a fair process

We gave the manager a fair opportunity to respond before we finalised the findings. We then gave leadership and legal counsel a structured report that separated confirmed findings from open questions and documented every source.

What We Found

  • An undisclosed relationship: Corporate filings showed that one of the vendor’s directors was a close family relative of the procurement manager. The relationship had never been declared.

  • A steady price drift: The vendor’s pricing had crept up to about [12–15%] above market. This was invisible in any single transaction.

  • An uneven playing field: Competing bids had repeatedly been disqualified on technical grounds that were not applied in the same way to the favoured vendor.

  • A measurable cost: The financial impact was estimated at [₹X crore / $X] over the period reviewed.

None of this showed up in the invoices, approvals or vendor file, which were all in order. It showed up once someone asked who was behind the vendor and why competitors kept losing.

The Outcome

  • Facts, not suspicion: The company had clear evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest and what it had cost.

  • Decisions on solid ground: Management acted on documented findings that legal counsel considered defensible.

  • Confidentiality maintained: The investigation finished without disrupting operations or alerting the wider organisation.

  • Stronger controls: On our recommendation, the company introduced mandatory annual conflict-of-interest declarations, rotation of procurement approvals and periodic vendor price benchmarking.

Most procurement risk doesn’t show up in a single transaction. It sits in patterns, relationships and the questions nobody thought to ask.

Scroll to Top