Skip to main content
Fraud Dashboard
Talk to us
Sample data

The Fraud Dashboard uses Sample State, a fictional dataset built on Ohio’s rules and thresholds. No real agency, vendor or person is shown.

See it on your data

Fraud dashboard

Sample State·FY2026
Suspicious transactions
$0
across 8 categories
To review
0
View transactions

Suspicious spending by category

Work the queue
  1. Federally excluded counterparties
    $10M
    24 to review
  2. Paid while debarred
    $9.8M
    11 to review
  3. Paid after an audit questioned costs
    $6.4M
    8 to review
  4. Dormant vendor, sudden large payment
    $5.8M
    21 to review
  5. Paid beyond apparent capacity
    $4.1M
    7 to review
  6. Paid after closing
    $3.1M
    13 to review
  7. Paid after tax exemption revoked
    $2.4M
    27 to review
  8. Voided warrant reissues
    $1.2M
    9 to review

What each category means

Federally excluded counterparties

Lead

A vendor matching the federal list of parties barred from public healthcare money

$10,175,649
109 payments
What it means
The payee name matches an entry on the HHS Office of Inspector General exclusion list. The question it raises is whether the state has an ongoing relationship with a provider the federal government has since barred.
What it does not mean
A name match is not an identity match, and an exclusion dated after a payment does not make that payment improper. Our ledger stores a payee name and nothing else, so matching individuals by name alone collides constantly. Every flag here must be verified against the exclusion date and a second identifier before it means anything.
24 to review →11 high severityHHS OIG List of Excluded Individuals and Entities

Paid while debarred

Corroborated

A payment dated while the payee was on the state debarment list

$9,840,215
63 payments
What it means
The payment date falls inside a debarment period published by the State of Ohio. Ohio Revised Code 9.242 bars a debarred vendor from participating in a state contract while debarred, and defines participation to include providing goods or services to a state agency.
What it does not mean
A payment dated during a debarment is not necessarily a payment for work done during it. Final payments, retainage releases and late progress payments on work completed before the debarment all land in this window legitimately. The voucher detail settles it, and nothing here should be read as a finding until it does.
11 to review →9 high severityOhio Revised Code 9.242, debarment of contractors

Paid after an audit questioned costs

Corroborated

Payments continuing after a federal audit questioned the payee’s grant costs

$6,402,877
41 payments
What it means
Payments dated after a single audit questioned costs that the same agency had passed through to the payee. The question is whether the agency issued the management decision the federal rules require, and whether it changed how it pays.
What it does not mean
Questioned costs are costs an auditor could not support, usually for weak documentation or controls. They are not a finding that money was taken, and many are later allowed.
8 to review →3 high severity2 CFR 200.521, management decision

Dormant vendor, sudden large payment

Lead

A vendor paid nothing for years, then paid a lot

$5,774,902
26 payments
What it means
A long-dormant vendor record suddenly receiving a large payment can indicate a hijacked or resurrected vendor account.
What it does not mean
A vendor winning a new contract after years without one is entirely ordinary.
21 to review →2 high severity

Paid beyond apparent capacity

Lead

Payments far larger than the payee’s reported size would suggest

$4,051,760
19 payments
What it means
A screen comparing what a provider was paid with outside measures of its size, such as the payroll its Paycheck Protection Program loans imply or the jobs it reported, against comparable providers.
What it does not mean
Growth since the measure was taken, contract staff the measure did not count, or several sites under one payee all produce the same gap. Only claim detail, the units, staff and service dates, can show what was delivered. It is a screen, not a finding.
7 to review →1 high severity

Paid after closing

Corroborated

Payments dated after the organisation stopped operating

$3,118,640
52 payments
What it means
Payments dated after a published closure date, such as an institution’s last day of instruction. The question is what the state was still paying for once the doors shut.
What it does not mean
Closing is not the same as ceasing to owe or be owed. Formula funding trued up after the fact, wind-down and teach-out costs, final payroll and bond payoffs all fall after a closure date and are ordinary. The explanation is usually available and usually mundane.
13 to review →4 high severity

Paid after tax exemption revoked

Corroborated

Payments to a nonprofit after the IRS revoked its tax exemption

$2,386,456
77 payments
What it means
Payments dated after the IRS published the automatic revocation of the payee’s exemption, which follows three consecutive years of missing annual returns.
What it does not mean
A revocation is not a finding of misuse. It is an administrative consequence of missing filings, and a nonprofit can file its returns and seek reinstatement. Whether it matters depends on what the state contract requires of the payee.
27 to review →1 high severityInternal Revenue Code section 6033(j), automatic revocation

Voided warrant reissues

Lead

Replacements for cheques that were cancelled, for any reason

$1,207,331
24 payments
What it means
Category 590059, covering warrants voided and reissued. Sits next to the forged-warrant category so the two can be compared, since a jump here without a matching jump there is worth asking about.
What it does not mean
Voiding is not forgery. Most of this is ordinary reissue after a cheque was lost, stale-dated or misaddressed. Treat the total as a population to triage, not as a loss.
9 to review →2 high severity
Spending monitored
$38B
Payments
286K
Vendors
14K
Agencies
13
Anchored batches
36