A shortage is found: the first week of an internal investigation

A stock count or a customer complaint has revealed a shortage, say 40 million so'm. The most natural reaction is to call in the storekeeper and ask "where are the goods?". That is the costliest mistake: the person panics, evidence may vanish and the real cause stays unknown. The right way is different: the first week goes not on finding someone to blame but on gathering facts. Below is a day-by-day routine for an internal investigation after a shortage is found.

The first hours: do not rush and do not spread the word

Only two or three trusted people should know about the shortage: the owner or director, the chief accountant and whoever leads the check. If word gets out, someone will "fix" a document, delete an entry or put goods back, and you will never see the true picture. Do not accuse or dismiss anyone. At the same time restrict warehouse movement: shorten the access list, record who holds keys, and temporarily close write access in the system while leaving view access.

Days 1 to 2: preserve the evidence

Evidence disappears quickly, so the first job is to copy it:

1. Export the document log from the system: who entered and changed each document, and when. Work with a copy and leave the original file untouched.
2. Copy the paper documents: delivery notes, write-off and return certificates.
3. Copy the camera recordings. In many systems recordings are overwritten after a few weeks.
4. Repeat the count, this time with two independent teams. You need to know whether the shortage is real or an error in the first count.

Days 3 to 4: analyse the difference

Now work with the numbers. Look for answers to five questions:

• When did the shortage begin? Find the period between the last reliable count and today.
• In which product group and zone? Is it spread evenly or concentrated in one or two groups?
• What is the paper trail? Does opening balance + receipts − issues = closing balance hold?
• Who worked, and on which shift? This is not for blaming but for seeing a pattern.
• Is it an error or abuse?

Signs of error: mixed-up units of measure, two codes for one product, a late document, a wrong location. Signs that may point to abuse: the shortage falls on one employee's shifts, the goods are expensive, small and easy to carry, adjustments were entered on nearby dates, documents are missing. A hypothetical example: of 40 million so'm, 14 million is explained by a unit-of-measure error, 9 million is found on another rack and 17 million remains unexplained. The investigation now focuses on exactly those 17 million, not the whole amount.

Calculate the amount two ways: at cost (the real loss) and at selling price (lost sales). A hypothetical example: 40 million at cost with a 30% mark-up is about 52 million at selling price. The accountant and management work from the cost figure, but it is useful to see the opportunity the business has lost.

Day 5: interviews

Hold interviews once the documents are ready, with at least two people present and a written statement. Questions should be open, not accusing: "When were these goods last seen?", "Who entered this document?", "Why was the balance adjusted on this day?" Ask with the document in hand and do not rely on guesses. Respect the employee's rights: labour law and liability issues are complex, so consult a lawyer before the interview.

Days 6 to 7: decisions and common mistakes

By the end of the week you should have the exact amount of the shortage, a split by cause (error, unknown, possible abuse), copies of documents and notes of interviews. Three decisions follow:

1. Fixing the process: strengthen whichever control the cause points to.
2. Recording in the books: the accountant decides how to treat the shortage.
3. Responsibility: with management and a lawyer, relying on evidence.

Common mistakes:

• Public accusations and questioning in front of colleagues.
• Immediate dismissal: you will not have time to collect evidence.
• "Correcting" in the system with a back date: the trail is lost and the auditor can prove nothing later.
• Closing the amount without finding the cause: the shortage returns.

Conclusion

When a shortage is found, it should be order, not emotion, that works in the first days: preserve evidence first, then analyse the figures and only then talk to people. OmborAudit, as an independent party, repeats the count, checks the paper trail and hands over a root-cause analysis as a document, so the decision rests on facts.