Recurrence Analysis
Finds the names, accounts, addresses and intermediaries that keep appearing across the material.
Asks: what keeps coming back?
Financial crime is more than a transaction.
Understand the operation behind it.
GFIA Investigation Lab is an investigative intelligence platform in development. It's designed to bring together the money, the people, the paperwork and the decisions behind them, so investigators can rebuild how a complex financial-crime operation really worked.
Public launch depends on pilot readiness and testing. No launch date has been set.
- Verified evidence
- Corroborated
- First-hand recollection
- Inference
- Uncertain
Follow the money.
Trace funds across accounts, companies and borders.
Understand the people.
Who they trusted, what they wanted and what they decided.
Reconstruct the operation.
Put events, people and money back in order, and show what's proven.
And underneath all three
Follow the paperwork and the instructions that caused the money to move.
- REGCompany records
- DEEDTrust deeds
- INVLegal invoices
- MINBoard resolutions
- INSTransfer instructions
- LOANLoan agreements
Money rarely moves on its own. Behind most transfers sits an invoice, a deed, a resolution or an instruction, and that paperwork shows who asked for it, who acted on it and why.
The guiding principle behind every part of the platform.
The Operational Interpretation Gap
Most financial-crime systems are good at spotting a suspicious transaction. They're far less help when you need to know why it happened. Who made the call? Who did they trust? What were they building? That space, between flagging the money and understanding the operation, is the gap we set out to close.
- ALERT 0417Unusual cross-border transfer
- ALERT 0418Payments just under the reporting threshold
- ALERT 0422New offshore beneficiary
- ALERT 0431Rapid movement through linked accounts
- Who introduced the client to the adviser
- Why anyone trusted the arrangement
- Which instruction set the money moving
- What the funds were meant to build
Closing that gap has always depended on experienced investigators. The Investigation Lab gives their reasoning a clear structure that others can follow, check and challenge.
Who owns it on paper isn't always who runs it
A company register tells you who holds the shares and who signs as director. It doesn't tell you who gives the instructions. The Investigation Lab records formal authority and actual control side by side, and never assumes one proves the other.
Swipe sideways to see the whole structure.
- Verified evidence
- First-hand recollection
- Uncertain
Step 1 of 3
On paper
The register shows a shareholder who owns Company 1, which owns a holding arrangement in another jurisdiction. A nominee director signs as director and for the bank account, and a law firm handled the paperwork.
- Formal authority
- Shareholder, director and signatory, all on the record.
- Actual control
- Not shown. A register can't tell you who decides.
Step 2 of 3
In practice
A first-hand account says the instructions came from someone who appears nowhere on the register. The shareholder holds legal title only. The Lab records this as a recollection, not a fact, and asks what would confirm or contradict it.
- Formal authority
- Unchanged.
- Actual control
- The person giving instructions, according to a first-hand account. Not yet corroborated.
Step 3 of 3
The paper trail
The bank account paid the law firm's fees for work on structures in two jurisdictions. That invoice, and the transfer instruction the nominee signed, connect entities that look unrelated on the register.
- What links them
- A legal invoice and the payment record. Both verified evidence.
- Next question
- Who instructed the law firm, and who controls the account that paid it?
- Legal ownership is recorded, but never treated as proof of control.
- Directors and signatories are kept apart from the people who originate the decisions.
- Payments to lawyers and other intermediaries are traced, because they can connect separate structures.
How an investigation works in the Lab
Six stages, built from how experienced investigators actually work a case. Each one hands the next something solid, and every item keeps its source, author and reliability from start to finish.
-
1
Open the case
Record the first information, where it came from and what you need to find out.
ProducesCase file -
2
Collect and classify
Documents, intelligence, recollections and financial records, each with its reliability.
ProducesEvidence register -
3
Reconstruct the people
Individuals, relationships, meetings and decisions, with legal roles kept apart from real influence.
ProducesChronologyRelationship map -
4
Reconstruct the structures and money
Companies, trusts and accounts, the movement of funds and the paperwork behind it.
ProducesOwnership and control mapTransaction map -
5
Ask better questions
AI flags gaps, contradictions and possible connections, and suggests what to ask next.
ProducesOpen questions register -
6
Review and report
The lead investigator reviews the findings and approves an evidence-linked report.
ProducesEvidence-linked report
Follow the money. Understand the people. Reconstruct the operation. And follow the paperwork that made it move.
Stage 1 of 6
Open the case
Start with what you know, and where it came from
An investigation can start with intelligence from a law-enforcement agency, a suspicious transaction report, a bank, a regulator, an informant, a witness or an investigator's own observations. The lead investigator opens a case file and records it, source and all.
- What the investigator learnsThe source of the lead, what it claims, and what the case needs to establish.
- Supporting evidenceThe original information, with its source and date.
- What remains uncertainWhether the lead is accurate, and what is known versus alleged.
- What to examine nextWho and what to identify first, and what to collect.
The case file starts with the original information and its source. The system then creates a case reference, an initial chronology and a secure evidence register, ready for everything that follows.
GFIA-EX-0001
Open
Reported international arrangement, about US$1.2 million
Where it came from
- Law-enforcement intelligence
- Suspicious transaction report
- Bank
- Regulator
- Informant
- Witness
- Investigator's observation
First identified
- Person A, client
- Company 1, holding company
- Account 1, Jurisdiction D
- Transfer of US$1.2 million
Created automatically
Case referenceGFIA-EX-0001
Initial chronology1 event so far
Evidence registerSecure and audited
Set out what the investigation needs to establish. Known facts, allegations and open questions sit in separate lists from day one, and only the people authorised for the case can see it.
Objectives
- Establish who controls Company 1.
- Trace the US$1.2 million to its final use.
- Identify the professionals who set up the structure.
Known facts 2
- Company 1 is registered in Jurisdiction A.
- Account 1 received US$1.2 million.
Allegations 1
- The funds came from criminal activity.
Open questions 3
- Who instructed the transfer?
- Who really owns Company 1?
- Was a second account used?
Authorised to work on this case
- Lead investigatorOpens the case, sets objectives, approves conclusions
- Analyst 1, Analyst 2Add material and observations
- Case administratorManages access, integrity and the audit record
Stage 2 of 6
Collect and classify
Documents, intelligence, recollections and financial records
Information comes in by hand and by upload. Every item keeps its source, date, author, reliability and audit history, so anyone reviewing the case can see where it came from and how much weight it carries.
- What the investigator learnsWhat each document, account or recollection contributes, and how reliable it is.
- Supporting evidenceThe registered material itself: documents, records and photographs, each with its source.
- What remains uncertainHow far a first-hand recollection can be backed up.
- What to examine nextWhich recollections need documents, and which documents need explaining.
Verified evidence
Proven by a reliable record.
A certified bank statement.
First-hand recollection
What a witness or investigator saw or heard.
An undercover officer's account of a meeting.
Independently corroborated
Confirmed by a separate, independent source.
Two unconnected witnesses agree.
Inference
An analytical conclusion, marked as one.
The timing suggests a link.
Uncertain
Reported, but not yet checked.
Intelligence about a second account.
Upload documents or enter information by hand. In the pilot, that's how all information comes in. Connections to approved external databases come later, and only where the customer has lawful access.
| Ref | Item | Type | Source | Added | By | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC-07 | Company registry extract, Company 1 | Corporate record | Registry | Day 15 | Analyst 1 | Verified evidence |
| SRC-14 | Trust deed | Legal document | Law firm file | Day 16 | Analyst 1 | Verified evidence |
| SRC-15 | Legal invoice for forming Company 1 | Invoice | Law firm file | Day 17 | Analyst 2 | Verified evidence |
| SRC-11 | Bank statement, Account 1 | Financial record | Bank production | Day 22 | Analyst 2 | Verified evidence |
| SRC-03 | Interview notes, Person C | Interview | Lead investigator | Day 24 | Lead investigator | First-hand recollection |
| SRC-31 | Intelligence about a second account | Intelligence | Partner agency | Day 30 | Analyst 1 | Uncertain |
Other authorised investigators can add material too, subject to their permissions and review. Every change is kept in the audit history.
Record a meeting, a conversation or an instruction as it was experienced. It's stored as a first-hand recollection, so it can never be mistaken for a verified record. In Operation Greece, this is where Keith's undercover experience comes in.
Account of the second meeting
- When
- Day 9, evening
- Where
- Hotel lounge, Jurisdiction A
- Who was there
- Introducer, client, financial adviser, undercover officer
- What was discussed
- Ways to hold the funds outside the client's home country
- How trust developed
- The introducer vouched for the adviser's discretion
- Decision
- The client agreed to use a holding company
- Instruction given
- The adviser would ask a law firm to form the company
Adds four people, one decision and one instruction to stage 3
Link each recollection and event to the material that supports it: photographs, emails, messages and external records, where they exist. Try adding layers to the event below.
Day 9
Decision to hold the funds through a company
Stage 3 of 6
Reconstruct the people
Individuals, relationships, meetings and decisions
Who was involved, what role each person played, who met whom and which decisions were made. Legal roles and real influence are recorded separately, because they're often not the same thing.
- What the investigator learnsWho is involved, in what role, and who appears again and again.
- Supporting evidenceRegisters, filings and correspondence that name each person and entity.
- What remains uncertainWho actually gives the instructions, as opposed to who signs.
- What to examine nextWhich people and entities to test against the record.
Each source adds people and organisations, with the roles they first appear in. Lawyers, nominee directors and other intermediaries are logged too, because they often hold the paperwork that explains everything else.
| Name | Type | Role | First seen | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Person A | Individual | Client | Day 1 meeting | First-hand recollection |
| Person B | Individual | Reported to give the instructions | Interview, Day 24 | First-hand recollection |
| Person C | Individual | Financial adviser | Day 1 meeting | Corroborated |
| Person E | Individual | Registered shareholder, Company 1 | Registry extract | Verified evidence |
| Nominee director | Individual | Director and authorised signatory | Registry extract | Verified evidence |
| Law firm A | Professional intermediary | Formed Company 1 | Legal invoice | Verified evidence |
Roles can change as the case develops. Each change is recorded with its source.
Put meetings, decisions and instructions in order. Mark what actually happened apart from what was only planned or later dropped, because an abandoned option can say a lot about intent.
- Day 1Introductory meeting with the client
- Day 9Decision to hold the funds through a company
- Day 10Instruction to Law firm A to form Company 1
- Day 12Plan to open an account in Jurisdiction F
- Day 14Company 1 registered
- Day 21First transfer into Account 1
- Day 60Proposed second investment
Select any person or entity to see the material behind each connection. A link's reliability changes only when the evidence does. Add new information below and watch the links change.
One meeting and two people, drawn from a first-hand account. All three links are recollections.
For every company and trust, the Lab keeps two records: who holds formal authority, and who the evidence says actually controls it. One never stands in for the other. See how this works.
Formal authority
What the records say
- Registered shareholderPerson EVerified evidence
- DirectorNominee directorVerified evidence
- Authorised signatoryNominee directorVerified evidence
- Formed byLaw firm AVerified evidence
Actual control
What the evidence shows
- Instructions came fromPerson BFirst-hand recollection
- Formation fees paid fromAccount 1Verified evidence
- Beneficial ownerNot yet establishedUncertain
The registered shareholder is recorded as the legal owner, never as the person in control, unless the evidence shows it.
Stage 4 of 6
Reconstruct the structures and the money
Ownership, control and the movement of funds
Companies, trusts and accounts are rebuilt layer by layer, across jurisdictions. Then the money is traced through them, together with the paperwork and instructions that caused it to move.
- What the investigator learnsHow the structure was built and how money moved through it.
- Supporting evidenceBank records, loan documents and invoices that carry each transfer.
- What remains uncertainWhere a movement is assumed rather than recorded.
- What to examine nextWhich transfers and links lack a source, and who could confirm them.
Rebuild how the structure was put together: which entity sits above which, which professional set up each layer, and which accounts belong to whom. The question at the top stays open until the evidence answers it.
Solid lines come from records. The dashed line rests on a first-hand account. The dotted line at the top is still an open question. Letters show jurisdictions.
Connect people, events and decisions to the movement of funds: transfers, loans and investments. Every entry keeps its source and status, so an assumed transfer is never presented as a bank record.
| When | From | To | Type | Amount | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 21 | Person A | Account 1, Jurisdiction D | Transfer | US$1,200,000 | Bank statement SRC-11 | Verified evidence |
| Day 26 | Account 1 | Account 2, Jurisdiction E | Transfer | US$800,000 | Transfer instruction SRC-17 | Corroborated |
| Day 40 | Account 2 | Trading company | Loan | US$500,000 | First-hand account SRC-03 | Recollection |
| Unknown | Trading company | Commercial investment | Investment | Not known | Inferred from timing | Assumed, not a bank record |
Assumed entries can be used in analysis, but they'll never appear as confirmed bank records in a report.
Payments to lawyers and other intermediaries can connect structures that look unrelated. Each instruction and payment is linked to the movement it caused, so you can see why the money moved and who asked for it.
-
NOTE
Instruction to Law firm A to form Company 1Described in interview SRC-03First-hand recollectionLed to: Company 1 registered, Day 14
-
INV
Law firm A invoice, paid from Account 1Law firm file and bank statement SRC-15Verified evidenceLinks Account 1 to Company 1
-
INV
Law firm C invoice, paid from Account 1Law firm file and bank statement SRC-16Verified evidenceLinks Account 1 to Companies 2 and 3, in another jurisdiction
-
INS
Transfer instruction signed by the nominee directorBank production SRC-17CorroboratedCaused: US$800,000 from Account 1 to Account 2, Day 26
Who drafted the instruction is still unresolved.
Stage 5 of 6
Ask better questions
AI assistance that knows what it doesn't know
The assistant organises the material, pulls out the details, suggests connections, spots contradictions and recommends the next questions. It never invents missing information, and it never presents an allegation as a fact.
- What the investigator learnsWhich questions the material can answer and which it cannot.
- Supporting evidenceThe cited material behind every answer the assistant gives.
- What remains uncertainCompeting explanations that fit the same facts.
- What to examine nextThe evidence that would separate one explanation from another.
Ask in plain language. The assistant answers from the case material only, cites its sources, separates evidence from interpretation and ends with the questions worth asking next.
Pinpoint missing evidence, relationships that haven't been resolved, and structures where money circles back through intermediaries. These are flagged for an investigator to review, not decided by the system.
- Possible loopHolding company, trading company and nominee account. Money appears to return to where it started.
- Evidential gapNo record yet for the transfer back to the holding company.
- UnresolvedWho controls the nominee account.
- UnresolvedWhether the second account exists.
Stage 6 of 6
Review and report
Human judgement, with every finding traceable
Everything comes together in views that update as the case grows. The lead investigator reviews the findings and approves the conclusions, and the report links each finding to the material behind it.
- What the investigator learnsThe case as a whole: people, events, money and decisions in one view.
- Supporting evidenceA source reference on every statement in the report.
- What remains uncertainOpen questions, contradictions and gaps, listed rather than hidden.
- What to examine nextWhat to pursue next, decided by the investigator.
Four views of the same case: the relationship map, the transaction ledger, the chronology and the evidence register. Change something in one and the others follow.
| When | Movement | Amount | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 21 | Person A to Account 1 | US$1,200,000 | Verified evidence |
| Day 26 | Account 1 to Account 2 | US$800,000 | Corroborated |
| Day 40 | Loan from Account 2 | US$500,000 | Recollection |
- Day 1Introductory meeting Recollection
- Day 9Decision to use a company Corroborated
- Day 14Company 1 registered Verified evidence
- Day 21First transfer Verified evidence
- REGCompany registry extractSRC-07Verified evidence
- DEEDTrust deedSRC-14Verified evidence
- INVLaw firm A invoiceSRC-15Verified evidence
- STMBank statementSRC-11Verified evidence
- INSTransfer instructionSRC-17Corroborated
- NOTEInterview notesSRC-03Recollection
The register of unresolved questions, contradictions and evidence gaps keeps the case honest. Each review ends with a clear list of what needs resolving before the lead investigator signs off.
Example case
Under reviewInvestigative positionFormation fees link Account 1 to Company 1 and to Companies 2 and 3. Who controls them is unresolved, and the second account hasn't been verified.
6Open questions
2Contradictions
4Evidence gaps
Recommended next steps
The report keeps verified evidence, recollections, inferences and unresolved matters apart, and every finding links to its sources. It stays a draft until the lead investigator approves it.
Investigative report, draft 2
Example case: findings to date
- 1
Account 1 paid the formation fees for Company 1 and for Companies 2 and 3.
- 2
US$800,000 moved from Account 1 to Account 2 on Day 26, on an instruction signed by the nominee director.
- 3
Person B gave the instructions to form Company 1.
- 4
The trading company's investment was funded by the loan from Account 2.
- 5
Who controls Account 2, and whether a second account exists.
Prepared by Analyst 1Approval: lead investigator, pendingEvery change is in the audit trail
Three analyses, one continuous reconstruction
Recurrence Analysis, Transaction Flows and Ownership & Control each answer a different question. In the Lab they feed one another, so the investigator follows a single thread from a repeated name to a payment to the person who decided.
Transaction Flows
Follows the money between those parties and marks which movements are recorded and which are assumed.
Asks: where did the money go, and what proves it?
Ownership & Control
Sets formal authority beside actual control, and never treats one as proof of the other.
Asks: who decided?
The result is one reconstruction. Each finding keeps its source and confidence level, and gaps stay visible. The analyses support one another. None of them validates another, and the investigator makes the final call.
Concept view. The platform is in development, and these analyses have not been independently validated.
Who does what
Everyone on a case has a clear job. The assistant helps throughout, but people weigh the evidence and make the calls.
Lead investigator
Opens the case, sets the objectives, reviews the findings and approves the conclusions.
Leads stages 1 and 6Investigators and analysts
Collect information, upload documents, record interviews, examine transactions and add their observations.
Lead stages 2 to 4AI investigation assistant
Organises information, extracts details, suggests connections, spots contradictions and recommends questions. It doesn't decide anything.
Assists stages 2 to 5Case administrator
Manages access permissions, document integrity, the audit record and security.
Throughout the case| Role | 1Open the case | 2Collect and classify | 3People and decisions | 4Structures and money | 5Better questions | 6Review and report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead investigator | ||||||
| Investigators and analysts | ||||||
| AI investigation assistant | ||||||
| Case administrator | ||||||
- Leads
- Takes part or reviews
- Assists, never decides
The investigator stays responsible for assessing the evidence and making the final decisions.
Operation Greece, our first pilot
Operation Greece draws on Keith Bulfin's first-hand experience of an undercover assignment involving a US Government agency. It gives us one real case to prove the whole method on, from the first information to the final reconstruction.
- US$9 millionA reported international financial arrangement
- Multiple jurisdictionsStructures set up in several countries
- Companies and trustsUsed to hold and move the funds
- Professional intermediariesLawyers and advisers who put the arrangements in place
- Investments in MexicoWhere the money was later committed
Why this case
On paper, it's an international movement of money. What makes it worth studying is underneath: how relationships formed, how trust was earned, which decisions turned conversations into financial arrangements, and which instructions set the money moving.
The structures were set up through different professionals in different places. The paperwork and payments behind them connect parts of the arrangement that look unrelated on a register, which is exactly what the pilot needs to show.
The original account comes from first-hand recollection rather than a complete set of records. That's the situation many investigators face, and it's why the method has to show clearly what's proven and what isn't.
How the pilot moves through the six stages
- Stage 1
Open the case
A case file for the reported US$9 million arrangement: the jurisdictions, companies, trusts, professional intermediaries and investments involved.
- Stage 2
Collect and classify
Keith's first-hand account, case material and historical photographs are registered, each with its source and reliability.
- Stage 3
Reconstruct the people
The people involved, their roles, the meetings and the decisions that mattered, with legal roles kept apart from real influence.
- Stage 4
Reconstruct the structures and money
The corporate arrangements first, then the bank accounts that linked them, then the movement of funds into Mexico.
- Stage 5
Ask better questions
The assistant flags gaps and contradictions, and suggests which records would confirm or contradict each part of the account.
- Stage 6
Review and report
Findings are reviewed and reported. Reconstructed financial records are never shown as verified bank records.
What the pilot will show
- Corporate arrangements
- Linked bank accounts
- Movement of funds into Mexico
One complete investigation, worked from start to finish. An investigator will be able to move between the paperwork, the people, the instructions and the transactions, and see how each one explains the others.
It's an evolving reconstruction. Historical details are checked and refined as the relevant records become available.
About this summary
This is a reviewed public overview. It doesn't disclose confidential operational information or identify anyone involved. Where financial records have been reconstructed, they're presented as reconstructions, not as independently verified bank records.
Built for the people who investigate financial crime
We're starting with the two groups that carry the heaviest investigative load. Universities and professional education follow once the platform is proven.
Law enforcement and regulatory authorities
Rebuild complex, cross-border cases in the order they happened. Test competing explanations and produce reports that keep evidence and interpretation apart.
- Chronological reconstruction from first-hand accounts
- Relationship maps across people, companies and jurisdictions
- Reports structured for formal review
Banks and financial institutions
Go past the alert. See the relationships and decisions behind suspicious activity, and record your reasoning in a way regulators can follow.
- See who controls an account, not just who's named on it
- Source and verification status on every entry
- Clear, documented reasoning for review
Next stage
Universities and professional education
Train future investigators with the same inside-out method professionals use, on authorised or simulated case material and without access to restricted evidence.
- Simulated case work based on a real investigative method
- A dedicated educational investigator role
- Case studies for teaching and research
Planned user roles
Each role gets its own permissions, tools and reporting requirements.
Bank analyst
Investigates suspicious activity and documents the reasoning for internal and regulatory review.
Law enforcement officer
Rebuilds operations, manages evidence and prepares case reports.
Regulatory examiner
Reviews how a case was investigated and how its conclusions were reached.
System administrator
Manages users, roles and access to restricted evidence.
Educational investigator
Works with authorised or simulated case material only.
Planned for a later stage
Journalists and media can find background material and interview requests in Insights and media.
Where we're up to
We'd rather show you something real than promise too much. Here's the plan, and the conditions it depends on.
- Now
Pilot development
Building one complete investigation around Operation Greece, from the first information to the final reconstruction.
- Next
Pilot evaluation
Testing the workflow, the evidence controls and the assistant with experienced investigators.
- Once the pilot is proven
Public launch
For law enforcement, regulators, banks and financial institutions. The date depends on pilot readiness and testing, so none is announced.
- After launch
Approved data connections
Links to external databases and institutional systems, only where the customer has lawful access.
- After launch
Universities and professional education
An educational investigator role, using authorised or simulated case material.
- Later
Predictive pattern matching
Developed and validated once the core platform has proven itself.
In the pilot, information is entered by investigators or uploaded as documents. That keeps the first version simple, secure and easy to check before any outside systems are connected.
About GFIA Investigation Lab
Our mission is to help investigators understand how financial-crime operations really work, and to be honest about what's known, what's remembered and what's still uncertain.
Keith Bulfin
Founder, Global Financial Intelligence Academy
Keith started out in international banking and finance, with senior roles in Australia, the United Kingdom and South Africa, including executive leadership. He later worked undercover on an authorised assignment involving a US Government agency, including operations connected to Mexican cartel financing.
He then spent many years on money-laundering, terrorist-financing and organised-crime matters with agencies in the United States, Europe and the Middle East. He is the author of Undercover, published by Penguin, and has been interviewed widely in the media. He holds a Master of Business Law and has carried out doctoral research into money laundering in the Australian financial system.
He founded the Global Financial Intelligence Academy to share what he learned on the inside. The Investigation Lab is built on it: you can't fully understand the money until you understand the people moving it.
We are reconstructing financial crime from the inside out.
Keith Bulfin
Experience behind the platform
Banking and finance
Investment banking and finance roles in Australia, the United Kingdom and South Africa.
Undercover operations
An undercover assignment involving a US Government agency, the experience behind Operation Greece.
International investigations
Money laundering, terrorist financing and organised crime, with agencies in the US, Europe and the Middle East.
Author and speaker
Author of Undercover (Penguin) and an international speaker on financial crime.
Policy and anti-trafficking work
Anti-money laundering policy work with China's banking and insurance regulator, and anti-trafficking work with the Monitors Foundation.
Academic research
A Master of Business Law and doctoral research into money laundering in Australia's financial system.
Global Financial Intelligence Academy
GFIA was founded by Keith Bulfin to address the Operational Interpretation Gap: the distance between spotting suspicious money and understanding the operation behind it. The Investigation Lab is GFIA's investigative platform. It has its own identity and carries the same investigative standards.
Meet the founderTechnology partnership
The platform is being designed and built with our technology partner, Colakin.
GFIAInvestigative method, case knowledge and an international professional network
ColakinProduct design, engineering and AI development
GFIA Investigation Lab
An international network
GFIA works with law enforcement, regulatory, academic and professional communities across Australia, India, Africa, the United Kingdom, North America and Asia. That network of more than 15,000 contacts will help shape the pilot and the launch.
Insights and media
Keith's book, interviews and talks on undercover work, money laundering and financial crime. Articles on the Investigation Lab method will follow from launch.
- Book
Undercover
Keith's account of his years inside international money-laundering operations, published by Penguin.
View on Penguin - Podcast
True Spies
Keith's undercover story, featured by Spyscape's True Spies.
Read on Spyscape - Podcast
Gangland Wire
An interview with host Gary Jenkins, a retired Kansas City police intelligence detective.
Link to follow - Television
60 Minutes
An interview about Keith's undercover role in Mexico.
Link to follow - Speaking
Indo-Pacific Robotics, Autonomy, AI and Cyber Conference
Keith is a listed speaker at the conference in Perth.
View speaker profile - Articles
From the Investigation Lab
Short pieces on the Operational Interpretation Gap and the inside-out method.
Coming at launch
For journalists
Background briefings on the Investigation Lab, approved images and interview requests with Keith Bulfin.
Questions we're often asked
Can't see your question here? Get in touch and we'll answer it directly.
Capabilities
What is GFIA Investigation Lab?
It's an investigative intelligence platform in development. It's designed to help investigators reconstruct complex financial-crime operations by bringing together the people, relationships, decisions, paperwork, money and evidence in one workspace.
How does an investigation start?
With whatever first raised the concern: intelligence from a law-enforcement agency, a suspicious transaction report, a bank, a regulator, an informant, a witness or an investigator's own observations. The lead investigator opens a case file, records the information and its source, and sets the objectives.
Where does the information come from?
Investigators enter it by hand or upload documents, such as company records, trust deeds, bank records, correspondence, legal invoices, interview notes and transaction instructions. Other authorised investigators can contribute, subject to their permissions and review. Connections to approved external databases are planned for later, only where the customer has lawful access.
Does the registered owner of a company control it?
Not necessarily, and the Lab never assumes so. It records formal authority, such as shareholders, directors and signatories, separately from actual control, and shows the evidence behind each. See an example.
How is it different from transaction monitoring or alert systems?
Those systems start with the money and work outward. The Investigation Lab also follows the people, the decisions and the paperwork that caused the money to move. It shows clearly what's verified, what's remembered, what's inferred and what's still uncertain.
Does the AI make decisions?
No. The assistant organises information, extracts details, suggests connections, spots contradictions and recommends questions. It won't invent missing information or present an allegation as a fact. The investigator assesses the evidence and makes every final decision.
Can several people work on one case?
Yes. A lead investigator, authorised investigators and analysts, and a case administrator each have their own role and permissions. Every contribution is recorded in the case's audit history.
Will it predict suspicious activity?
Pattern prediction is part of the plan, but it isn't the focus of the first pilot. The pilot concentrates on reconstructing one complete investigation and testing explanations. Prediction will be added once it has been developed and properly validated.
Deployment
Can we use it without direct access to bank records?
Yes. Transactions can be logged by hand, each with its source and verification status, and supporting documents can be attached when they become available.
How will the platform be deployed?
We'll agree deployment options, including hosting and data residency, with each organisation during the pilot stage. Let us know your requirements when you register.
Data handling
How will our data be protected?
The platform is designed so restricted evidence is only visible to roles with the right permissions, and every item keeps an audit history. We'll publish our full security and data-handling approach before launch, and we won't claim any certification until we hold it.
Will real case material be used in education?
Students and universities will work with authorised or simulated case material only. They won't have access to restricted evidence.
Availability
When can we start using it?
There is no public launch date yet. Launch depends on pilot readiness and testing. Register your interest and we'll tell you as soon as there is news.
What's the difference between registering interest and joining the pilot?
Registering interest means we'll tell you when the platform launches. Pilot participants work with us before launch, see early versions and help shape the product. You can choose either option in the form.
Register your interest
Tell us about your organisation and what you'd like to do next. We'll use your details to follow up about the Investigation Lab and nothing else.
We haven't set a public launch date. It depends on pilot readiness and testing.
Your registration is in.
We'll be in touch soon.
Contact us
Whether you're an agency, an institution, a university or a journalist, we'd like to hear from you. Send your enquiry through this form and we'll reply directly.
Institutional enquiries
Law enforcement agencies, regulators, banks and financial institutions.
Partnership opportunities
Universities, professional associations and technology partners.
Demonstration requests
Book a guided look at the pilot.
Media enquiries
Background, approved images and interview requests.
Enquiry sent.
We'll reply soon.
Legal and security
Full policies will be published before launch.
Privacy
We only collect what you enter in our forms, and we use it to respond to you. We don't sell personal information.
Terms of use
This site describes a platform in development. Information here may change and isn't an offer of service.
Security commitments
Restricted evidence is designed to be visible only to roles with the right permissions. We won't claim certifications we don't hold.
Disclosures
Interface images are concept views with example data, and the ownership and control example uses fictional people and entities. Operation Greece material is a reviewed public summary. The platform is in development and no public launch date has been set.