A defensible fraud review separates mandate validity, loss arithmetic, custody gaps and actor attribution.
Advanced OSINT practice starts when several plausible observations point in different directions. The task is not to invent the most dramatic explanation. It is to identify which records are independent, what their timestamps mean and what a proposed conclusion would require.
Contemporary context
INTERPOL’s 17 March 2026 summit report discusses generative AI and impersonation in fraud. Our exercises use fictional transactions and identities to practise bounded reasoning without accusing real people.
INTERPOL · 17 March 2026. Source checked on 6 October 2026. Public guidance is separate from the invented evidence in the exercises.
Five progressively harder investigations
Operation Voice Voucher: Synthetic impersonation and corroborated routing
Use independently established contact details for confirmation and distinguish mandate evidence from voice familiarity. Transaction arithmetic can establish loss exposure without identifying a person or the technology used to impersonate them.
A fictional charity receives a voice request to change a supplier payment. Identify what the transaction record proves and what the audio cannot prove. No real donation or bank transaction is involved.
Investigate the advanced dossier
Operation Receipt Split: Mass balance and custody windows
Reconcile unique items rather than raw scan rows. Use signed transitions to bracket a gap, then state separately what a missing item, an uncertain weight and shared accesscan establish.
A fictional depot reports a theft after reconciling parcel counts. A duplicate scan and clock offset complicate the count. Determine the actual shortfall and the window where documentation ends.
Investigate the advanced dossier
Operation Relay Recruit: Victim-centred recruitment chronology
Preserve coercion indicators while separating authenticity and corroboration. Multiple articles copying one message do not independently prove welfare conditions; an authenticated travel receipt supports movement rather than every allegation attached to it.
Synthetic job adverts and movement records suggest a deceptive recruitment operation. Examine mismatched promises, source dependency and limited welfare evidence without naming a real victim, recruiter or location.
Investigate the advanced dossier
Operation Clockwork Witness: Time intervals and shared-device limits
Treat accounts and people as different entities. Interval arithmetic can disprove an impossible-alibi claim while still leaving actor attribution unresolved; never promote feasibility into proof of commission.
A fictional archive loses a folder. Two device logs appear to establish a suspect’s presence. Work with corrected intervals, not a point timestamp, and distinguish account use from observed human presence.
Investigate the expert dossier
Operation Wallet Detour: Transaction graph and gross versus net recovery
Follow attributable inputs, fees, retained balances and actual recovery receipts. A wallet balance or consolidation transfer is not money returned; graph association is weaker than authenticated account-control evidence.
A fictional scam-loss packet shows transfers through intermediary wallets. Determine actual recovery and avoid identifying beneficiaries from graph proximity. Values are training units and no transaction is executed.
Investigate the expert dossier
A reusable evidence worksheet
- Record the observation. Preserve the original wording, identifier, timestamp, source and uncertainty. A quoted claim is not the same as an independently verified event.
- Normalize without overwriting. Add a corrected time or comparable amount beside the original. Write the timezone, clock error, unit conversion and rounding rule so another analyst can reproduce it.
- Trace dependency. Identify copied reports, shared instruments and derived records. Several displays may still represent one originating observation.
- Test the competing explanation. Look for a control, alternative version, ordinary mechanism or missing authority that could produce the same visible result.
- State the boundary. Separate established observations, reasonable inferences and unresolved questions. Name the additional independent record most likely to change the assessment.
How these cases level up your practice
Each dossier contains eight synthetic evidence records and seven graded objectives. The first three investigations in this category are Advanced; the final two are Expert. Difficulty comes from multi-record reconciliation and calculation rather than hidden internet searches or obscure trivia. The brief states the necessary assumptions and answer format. You can keep a narrative analysis in your notes while the engine checks the decisive short answers.
Hints are progressive. Start with the structure hint, use the method hint if you need a way into the problem, and reserve the worked-resolution hint for learning after a genuine attempt. Final-answer reveals are a learning review and do not establish an unassisted investigation result. Published methods here explain the approach without reproducing the seven graded answers.
Frequently asked questions
Are these real incidents?
No. The records, identities, organisations and events are fictional. Where public current guidance is linked, it supplies a topic context rather than authentication of a dossier.
Do I need to contact or scan a real target?
No. The supplied packet contains the evidence needed for the objectives. Do not identify private people, access restricted systems or treat a tabletop route decision as real emergency guidance.
Can an unresolved conclusion be correct?
Yes. A sound investigation can establish a discrepancy while leaving identity, intent or cause unresolved. Report the supported result and the evidence required to go further.