Knowledge Hub - OSINT, KYC & Due Diligence Insights

Due Diligence & Background Checks

He had already been convicted before. That didn't stop people from handing him millions of shekels again

This morning I read the article about Ido Samuel, who was previously convicted of fraud offenses, served a prison sentence, and after his release went back to managing money for private clients. Some of them lost significant sums.

Read full postShow less

This story is not just a story about investments, crypto or the capital market.

It is a story about a failure of due diligence.

Many people think a background check is only meant for hiring employees. In practice, it is no less important when choosing a business partner, an investment manager, a supplier, an advisor, or anyone who is supposed to be given access to money, information or assets.

In this case, some of the information was completely available in open sources: a criminal conviction for fraud offenses; a lengthy prison term; historical media coverage; legal proceedings and rulings; and business and public information that can be located through professional searching.

The problem is that finding the information is not enough. You have to know how to connect the dots.

An OSINT-based background check is not just about collecting data. The real value lies in the analysis and in understanding what the information means for the purpose of making a decision.

When you assess a person who is meant to manage your money or make financial decisions, the question is not only "Did he have a prior conviction?", but rather: Did he disclose it fully? Are there additional warning signs? Are there gaps between the public image and reality? And are there patterns that recur over the years?

Ultimately, most major frauds don't begin with technological sophistication. They begin with trust.

And before extending trust, it is worth conducting a professional background check based on open information sources, in order to make an informed decision grounded in facts rather than in personal impression or charisma.

Read the article

Due Diligence & Background Checks

The biggest mistake in background checks? Attributing information to the wrong person.

Many people think the main challenge in background checks is finding information.

Read full postShow less

In my view, that's actually the easy part.

The real challenge begins the moment after we've found the information: are we certain it belongs to the person we're actually checking?

In a world where millions of people share similar names, use nicknames, maintain multiple digital profiles and sometimes leave only partial traces, it's very easy to fall into the trap of a "quick identification."

I often come across cases where investigators, recruiters or managers see a problematic profile online, an old article or a negative mention, and rush to draw conclusions.

But a professional background check is not an exercise in gathering information. It's an exercise in verifying identities.

Before drawing conclusions, you have to verify: is it the same person? Does the geographic location match? Does the timeline line up? Are there additional identifiers that connect the data points? And are there independent sources that confirm the link?

The greatest danger isn't missing negative information. The greatest danger is attributing negative information to the wrong person.

A mistake like that can lead to flawed hiring decisions, damage to the reputation of an innocent person, and even legal exposure.

That's why one of the most important principles in open-source intelligence (OSINT) work is: first you verify. Only then do you conclude.

That's the difference between gathering information and pursuing the truth.

Due Diligence & Background Checks

Doubt Is Your Lifeline

Today I came across a post about the "Venezuelan Poodle Moth" — a "poodle moth" that looks like a furry, cute creature out of an animated film.

Read full postShow less

At first it seemed completely credible. Photos, explanations, Google results, mentions on various sites including Wikipedia.

But the deeper I dug, the more I discovered that most of the story isn't grounded in anything at all. Some of the photos were wool sculptures by a Japanese artist. Others were images of entirely different species. And in practice, the only thing that truly exists is a single photograph of an unidentified moth taken in Venezuela (the image at the top left). There isn't even an official scientific recognition of such a species.

What's interesting here isn't the moth. It's the way information turns into "truth."

Today, search engines no longer rely solely on original sources. They are also fed by content created by AI, by automated summaries, by copying between sites, and by information that recycles itself again and again.

And what this means is that even if you try to do a "reverse trace" and check what the real source is, it becomes very difficult. Because at a certain point, the original source disappears, the information is copied hundreds of times, AI systems summarize erroneous information, and unverified content starts to look more credible than reality itself.

And this is precisely one of the great challenges in the world of background checks.

It isn't enough to know how to search for information. You need to know how to doubt information.

You need to understand: Who is the source? Is there any verification? Is this primary information or a copy? Is there a vested interest? And is everyone simply quoting one another?

In an era where AI can generate enormous quantities of convincing content, the ability to think critically becomes a critical professional asset.

This is exactly why professional background checks cannot rely solely on a quick Google search or on AI tools.

In the end, you still need people who know how to connect contexts, identify manipulation, understand what's missing from the picture — and above all, know when not to believe immediately something that looks credible.

Insider Threats & Organizational Risk

The brilliant startup that can't work because it has no security clearance

In recent years I've been hearing more and more defense organizations talk about their desire to work with small, innovative and agile companies. Everyone wants innovation. Everyone wants creative solutions. But in reality, quite a few companies never even make it to the starting line.

Read full postShow less

An interesting article published recently in the UK exposed one of the biggest challenges in the defense world: the security clearance process itself.

On the one hand, there's no debate about the importance of background checks, security clearances and protecting sensitive information. These are essential mechanisms designed to safeguard national interests, sensitive technologies and critical supply chains.

On the other hand, when the process of obtaining a clearance drags on for many months and sometimes more than a year, an absurd situation arises: the company can't get a contract because it has no clearance, but it also can't get a clearance because it has no contract.

This dilemma isn't unique to the UK. Anywhere that complex screening processes and trustworthiness vetting exist, the challenge is finding the balance between security and agility.

As someone who has worked for many years in the field of background checks and trustworthiness vetting, I believe the goal is not to lower the requirements. On the contrary.

The goal is to create smarter, faster and risk-management-based processes.

Not every supplier represents the same risk. Not every employee needs the same level of vetting. And not every process has to drag on for many months.

When risks are managed properly, you can both maintain security and enable innovation and growth.

The real challenge isn't to perform more checks. The challenge is to perform the right checks, at the right time, and in a way that lets the organization move forward instead of getting stuck.

Read the article

Insider Threats & Organizational Risk

Would you let someone who stayed silent in the face of murder treat you?

I read the article about Lihi Darnell (Gluzman), the state's witness in the Asaf Steierman murder case, who is now undergoing training in clinical psychology. Beyond the legal and public debate, this case raises in my eyes a far broader professional question:

Read full postShow less

How deeply do organizations vet the people in whose hands they place power, influence and trust?

In this case it's a therapeutic profession. In other settings it's a CFO, a security officer, a procurement manager, an IT person with broad permissions, or an employee exposed to sensitive information.

One of the central lessons from the world of insider threats is that not every risk is measured by a criminal record or a conviction. Sometimes it's precisely behavioral patterns, decision-making under pressure, moral judgment and reactions to extreme events that should set off warning lights.

Many organizations focus on the question "Does this employee have a criminal record?", but often the more important question is: "Is there material information about their past conduct that would make us think twice before granting them a sensitive role?"

In this specific case, it isn't a legal question but a question of risk management.

When a person is set to hold a position of trust, to influence other people or to gain access to sensitive resources, it's worth examining several layers: a history of decision-making in extreme situations; involvement in events of public or moral significance; gaps between their current image and material past events; an up-to-date rather than one-off risk assessment; and oversight and control mechanisms over time.

It's also important to remember that insider threats don't arise solely from malicious intent. Sometimes they stem from poor judgment, from withholding information, from a lack of accountability, or from value conflicts that weren't identified in time.

Ultimately, every organization has to decide where the line lies between personal rehabilitation and professional responsibility. It's a complex decision, but it must be made out of informed risk management and not out of the assumption that if there's no legal impediment, there's no risk either.

Read the article

Insider Threats & Organizational Risk

He looked like the perfect employee, until he started to dismantle the organization.

One of the most disturbing books we have read recently in the field of organizational behavior is "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare.

Read full postShow less

The book deals with the kind of people that most organizations don't really know how to identify in time. Not violent criminals. Not extreme characters from movies. Rather charismatic, impressive, sharp people, with an extraordinary ability to make others believe in them.

It is precisely because of this that they are dangerous.

The authors describe how an organizational psychopath manages to fit into an organization, advance quickly, accumulate power and influence, and along the way leave behind enormous damage: the breaking up of teams, the creation of conflicts, political manipulations, intimidation of employees, harm to trust, the creation of a toxic culture, and at times also fraud and abuse of authority.

What is particularly interesting is that the book explains that the problem is not only with the person himself. At times the organization also contributes to it without realizing it.

Organizations that sanctify charisma, fast results, aggressiveness, achievement at any cost, and internal politics, may mistakenly identify psychopathic behavior as "leadership".

One of the important things in the book is the description of the three stages in which an organizational psychopath operates.

In the first stage he studies the system: who is strong, who is weak, who is influential, who is threatened, who has access to power and information.

In the second stage the manipulation begins: flattery, the creation of false trust, adapting his personality to each individual, sophisticated lies, and quiet harm to rivals.

In the third stage comes the abandonment: when the person is no longer useful, he is thrown aside. Sometimes also with deliberate harm to his reputation.

The most important part for me is the understanding that it is not always possible to identify such people through charisma or first impression. On the contrary.

In many cases they are calm under pressure, know how to speak convincingly, project self-confidence, know how to "read people", and imitate empathy excellently.

And therefore in the world of Insider Threats, employee recruitment, and reliability assessment, one must not rely only on intuition or a "gut feeling".

One must examine: behavioral consistency, gaps between words and actions, patterns of manipulation, attitude toward people without power, history of conflicts, and repeated use of victims, accusations, and politics.

This book is an excellent reminder that the most dangerous threats in an organization don't always come from outside.

Sometimes they are sitting in the boardroom.

Insider Threats & Organizational Risk

The most dangerous manager in the organization? It isn't always the one who steals information

I meet quite a few managers who look at the 'insider threat' only through the prism of information theft, industrial espionage or financial fraud. But there is another kind of insider threat, far quieter, that usually does not appear in security reports.

Read full postShow less

The abuser.

That manager who belittles employees, humiliates them in front of others, instills fear, erodes them psychologically, creates anxiety and dismantles self-confidence over time.

Studies have already shown that workplace abuse does not stay on the emotional level alone. It harms cognitive ability, decision-making, memory, concentration and professional functioning. An employee under ongoing psychological terror begins to make more mistakes, to withdraw, to lose motivation and sometimes even to develop anger toward the organization itself.

And this is exactly where the connection to the world of insider threats begins.

Because sometimes the 'predator' himself is the insider threat. And sometimes he creates a new insider threat: the employee he has harmed.

An employee who experiences ongoing humiliation can turn into a bitter, indifferent, vengeful or uncommitted person. In certain cases this manifests as quiet quitting, leakage of information, harm to processes, or simply a functional collapse that damages the organization from within.

This is exactly why I think it is not enough to check only the integrity, past or reliability of candidates. You also need to know how to identify predatory patterns.

Yes, there are ways to identify them. You can detect early signs already at the recruitment stage: extreme patterns of control, manipulativeness, lack of empathy, destructive interpersonal relations over time, recurring burnout patterns in the teams they have managed, and a work environment that produces fear instead of trust.

And if that person is already inside the organization, you must monitor such behaviors exactly as you monitor other security anomalies. Because their damage does not always appear immediately, but when it explodes, the organizational cost is enormous.

I think that in the near future organizations will understand that workplace abuse is not only an issue of HR or employee well-being. It is an issue of organizational security.

Behavioral Profiling & Vetting

The body betrays long before the words break

One of the most fascinating topics in the world of human behavior is the Embodiment Effect.

Read full postShow less

The core idea is simple but very profound: our body does not merely "express" emotions and thoughts, it also influences them, and sometimes even reveals them before the brain manages to control the message.

For years, body language was viewed as an "add-on" to communication. Today it is already clear that it is part of the thinking system itself. Sitting posture, hand placement, breathing rate, head movements, distance from the camera, use of space, micro-expressions, vocal changes, and even the manner of typing are all part of a behavioral information system.

In business profiling this is critical.

When we conduct a reliability assessment or try to identify the potential for an internal threat within an organization, we are not looking only for a "lie." It is far more complex. We are looking for incongruence.

The Embodiment Effect makes it possible to understand when physical behavior is not synchronized with the narrative a person is trying to produce. For example: a candidate who speaks confidently but whose body is in continuous defensiveness; an employee who declares commitment to the organization but reacts physically with stress when issues of authority, control, or loyalty arise; a manager who presents stability but shows abnormal signs of arousal around financial questions or internal conflicts; a remote candidate who produces "too perfect" eye contact, with an artificial response pace and communication patterns that suggest the use of external aids or real-time AI.

And here the new challenge enters: remote assessment.

In the era of hybrid work and Zoom interviews, some people think it is possible to "hide" behavior through a screen. In practice, the opposite sometimes happens.

The camera reduces background noise and forces us to focus on micro-behaviors: response delays, tone changes, eye darting, over-adjustments, unnatural listening, disconnects between voice and expression, motor freezing, and excessive use of calculated gestures.

Precisely in a remote environment, when you know what to look for, you can identify very significant indications of reliability, stress, concealment, manipulation, or internal conflict.

But it is important to state the professional truth: there is no "magic sign" that proves a lie. This is one of the biggest mistakes in the field.

Professional profiling is not built on myths of "touching the nose = lying." It is built on creating a behavioral baseline, identifying anomalies, cross-referencing information sources, analyzing context, understanding motivations, and reading dynamics rather than just isolated signs.

The Embodiment Effect is especially important in identifying internal threats within organizations, because people can control their words far more than their bodies. And in situations of stress, conflicting loyalties, a sense of threat, or concealment, the body almost always "leaks" information.

The future of the world of business profiling will not be based solely on technology nor solely on human intuition. It will be a combination of deep behavioral understanding, digital analysis, the use of OSINT, anomaly detection, and the human ability to read people even through a screen.

Because in the end, even in the era of AI, a person still leaves a behavioral signature.

Behavioral Profiling & Vetting

Not every toxic employee shouts. Some just smile right in the interview.

One of the most troubling topics in the world of personality assessment is 'the Dark Triad'.

Read full postShow less

These are three personality traits that may initially look like self-confidence, charisma, or assertiveness, but within an organization they can turn into a real internal threat: narcissism, which involves a need for admiration, a sense of superiority, and difficulty accepting criticism; manipulativeness (Machiavellianism), which means using people as tools to achieve goals, without much guilt along the way; and functional psychopathy, which involves extreme coolness, a lack of empathy, and the ability to carry out harmful actions without conscience.

The interesting part is that people with such traits don't always fail job interviews. On the contrary.

More than once they are very impressive. They know how to talk. They know how to sell themselves. They know how to identify other people's weaknesses. And they know exactly which persona the organization wants to see in front of them.

That's why I think one of the biggest challenges today in the world of insider threats is not only identifying a 'problematic past', but understanding patterns of personality and behavior that may turn into an organizational risk in the future.

This can manifest as leaking information, deliberately harming the organization, manipulating employees, creating a toxic culture, or simply making dangerous decisions without any empathy for the consequences.

It's clear that not every person with Dark Triad traits is a criminal or an insider threat. But when you combine access to sensitive information, pressure, ego, lack of oversight, and manipulative ability, you get a combination that managers must be aware of.

And this is exactly where the value of in-depth assessment, proper questioning, intelligence from open information sources, and identifying red flags before harm occurs comes into play.

Because in the end, the most dangerous threat in an organization is usually not the one who looks dangerous. It's the one who knows how to look perfect.

Behavioral Profiling & Vetting

Culture shapes the person standing in front of us

When we assess a person, it is very easy to project our own value system onto them. What looks to us like suspicious, inconsistent, or even problematic behavior can, in another context, be perfectly normal.

Read full postShow less

For example, there are cultures in which avoiding eye contact is a sign of respect. For others, it immediately raises questions. There are places where direct communication is seen as positive, while elsewhere it is perceived as rude.

And this is where biases come into play.

When we are not aware of them, we are not really analyzing the person. We are analyzing the gap between them and us.

In business profiling, this is especially critical. Decisions are made about people: candidates, partners, suppliers. An error in interpretation can lead to missing out on an excellent person, or worse, to failing to identify a real risk.

So what do we learn from this?

First of all, professional humility. Understanding that not everything that seems right to us truly is.

Second, context. Always asking: where does this person come from? Does the behavior fit with the culture they come from?

And finally, the right combination of analytical tools and human understanding. Without this, there is no real objectivity.

Anyone who works with people must understand cultures. Otherwise, they are simply guessing.

AI, Deepfakes & Synthetic Fraud

When the face on the screen is real. The person behind it isn't.

This past week, a particularly troubling case came to light in Israel that shows how the world of fraud is being transformed by artificial intelligence.

Read full postShow less

According to the suspicions, a 20-year-old managed to create “synthetic identities” of Israeli citizens using photos and personal details obtained from breached databases. With AI tools he animated the photos, produced videos that looked entirely authentic, and used them to open bank accounts, order credit cards and carry out financial transactions in the names of people who had no idea it was happening.

According to the investigation, many dozens of victims have already been identified, and it is suspected that hundreds of citizens were harmed by this activity.

What troubles me most about this case is not only the scale of the fraud, but the proof that the identification methods we have relied on for years are no longer sufficient on their own.

A photo of an ID card, a selfie, a short video, remote verification — until recently all of these were considered strong layers of protection. Today, in the right hands and with advanced AI tools, they can be faked to a level that makes it very hard for the human eye to detect the deception.

This challenge no longer belongs only to banks. It is relevant to any organization that hires employees remotely, approves suppliers, opens customer accounts, grants access permissions or runs digital identification processes.

The question is no longer whether an identity can be faked, but whether your control system is able to detect the forgery in real time.

In recent years I have seen more and more cases in which the line between a real person and a figure created by AI is becoming blurred. Organizations must adapt their verification mechanisms to the new reality, and not rely solely on methods built for a world that existed before artificial intelligence.

Alongside the threat, there are now advanced solutions that make it possible to spot signs of AI forgeries, detect anomalies in the identification process and verify identities in real time.

We have advanced technological solutions to address these challenges in real time. Feel free to reach out to me for details.

Read the article

AI, Deepfakes & Synthetic Fraud

How do we know if what we're seeing is really happening or really happened?

This is no longer a philosophical question. It's a business question, a security question and a management question.

Read full postShow less

The article in Science by Prof. Hany Farid, one of the world's leading experts on detecting digital manipulation, lays out a reality we all have to internalize: a deepfake no longer looks like a technological toy. It looks real, sounds real, spreads fast, and shapes the way people make decisions.

And the big problem isn't just that the fakes are getting better. The bigger problem is that trust is being eroded.

When a manager receives a video. When the HR department runs an online interview. When a company gets approached by an investor, a candidate, a vendor or a business partner. When an incriminating video starts circulating online. When a familiar voice asks for urgent action.

The first question can no longer be: "Does this look real?" Because today, plenty of fake things look completely real.

The right question is: "How do we check this professionally before we act?"

What I especially liked in the article is Farid's investigative approach. He doesn't settle for an automated tool that says "90% fake" or "70% real." He examines physics, motion, shadows, reflections, angles, lip-sync to voice, consistency between frames, and the broader context.

And that's exactly the point. With deepfakes there is no single magic solution. You need a combination of technology, investigative experience, an understanding of human behavior, an understanding of the digital arena, and the ability to ask the right questions.

In the business world this is especially critical. Because deepfakes don't threaten only politicians or celebrities. They threaten hiring processes, background checks, trust between organizations, fraud protection, digital identity, and the ability to understand who is really standing in front of us.

An online job interview can be faked. A professional profile can be well built yet not genuine. A manager's voice can be cloned. A video can be edited. An image can be generated from scratch. A document can look authentic while being part of a broad deception scheme.

That's why organizations can't stay at the stage of "it looks real to me." They need a verification capability. Not out of panic. Not out of excessive suspicion. But out of responsibility.

Anyone who recruits employees for sensitive roles, vets business partners, verifies identities, handles fraud incidents or deals with suspicious content online must add to their desk the ability to deal with deepfakes too. Especially when everything happens online.

If you're dealing with a suspected deepfake, a fake identity, a suspicious interview, problematic digital content or an incident where it's unclear what's real and what's not, you're welcome to reach out to us.

We have innovative, groundbreaking solutions for dealing with deepfakes, including in online environments, combining advanced technology with professional human analysis.

Read the article