Raising a Credit Memo, and then re-Invoicing the client for the same item is unexpected, and may be an attempt manipulate accounts, or a sign of inefficiencies in process. Investigating patterns of such occurrences may reveal further issues.
Yes. Most instances will have innocent explanations. In particular, it is important to look at the wider context of transactions, not just the flagged ones.
Click the icon to the right of each report line to see the context, and to flag the transaction with your categorisation.
In this analysis we are looking at Credit Memos, and in particular, how they are related to Invoices to the same client for the same item.
If a client is Invoiced, and then a Credit Memo is raised, we do not consider that suspicious. There are lots of valid reasons why a sale might be cancelled, and we are not setting out to see them.
Instead, here we are focused on Credit Memos which are then followed by a matching (or similar) Invoice. It is the order in which the transactions occur, which makes them suspicious.
Having narrowed our analysis to sets of a Credit Memo followed by an Invoice, for the same client for the same item, we then score them, based on how soon the Invoice was raised, and how similar the values are.
Resulting transactions are then ranked in the report, with the highest-ranked - most suspicious - shown first.
The higher the rating the more suspicious it is. The numeric rating value has no particular 'meaning', but they can be compared. The lowest rating is 0 - meaning no suspicion. The highest you will normally see is about 1.5.