Case Study · Corporate Intelligence

The Departure That Took More Than It Should Have

Composite case study based on representative engagements. Names, locations, sectors, monetary figures and identifying details have been altered or merged across multiple instructions to protect client confidentiality.

The Brief

A senior employee had resigned and joined a direct competitor. Within a fortnight, the client noticed that two prospective tenders they had been quietly preparing were being competed for — accurately, and aggressively — by the new employer. The board needed to know whether confidential material had left the building, and if so, what, when, and by what route.

Our Approach

We executed a forensically sound acquisition of the departing employee's issued devices and a targeted review of cloud activity logs across the final 90 days of access. In parallel, our offensive security team conducted a controlled assessment of the data exfiltration paths the employee had access to — not to attribute, but to map what was technically possible. The two streams were then reconciled.

Insider Threat Scorecard
VolumeAnomalous download burst within final 14 days of access
ChannelPersonal cloud sync intermittently active on issued laptop
IntentPattern consistent with curation, not routine use
Control gapDLP rule scope did not cover the channel observed

What We Found

Two specific document sets — one of them the tender material — had been synchronised to a personal cloud account in the final week of employment. The forensic record was unambiguous: filenames, timestamps, hashes and the offline-online sync events were all preserved. The control gap that allowed it was mapped and documented.

Outcome

The client's solicitors used the report to send a precisely scoped letter before action. The competitor returned and certified destruction of the relevant material under independent supervision, and the prospective tender process was re-set. In the hardening phase that followed, we closed the DLP gap, tightened off-boarding, and ran a tabletop exercise with the leadership team so the same pattern would be visible far earlier next time.

14 days
from board instruction to evidential report
2
document sets recovered and certified destroyed
1
control gap closed before next departure cycle

We expected a forensic report. We received a forensic report, a legal lever, and a quieter Monday morning. That is the order it should arrive in.— Board chair, anonymised

Begin Your Engagement

Your matter will not appear here. That is the point.

Begin Confidential Inquiry →