GUEST BLOGGER
Mason Wilder, CFE
Senior Research Specialist

Investigative interviews can be a vital piece of any fraud examination, and getting an interview’s mechanics right goes a long way toward improving prospects for the interview’s success. Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all template that fraud examiners at any organization can follow to guarantee an optimal setting for every interview.

One aspect of an interview’s setting that can prove difficult for fraud examiners to navigate is the question of how many people should participate in an interview and which personnel should or should not be allowed to sit in on an interview. Answering these questions will involve several important considerations, which are discussed below.

Generally, interviewers should strive to reduce potential distractions for the interviewee to increase the chances of an interview’s success, and additional individuals present in the room can often distract an interviewee. However, there are circumstances in which the presence of additional individuals is mandated or can aid the interview process.

What does company policy say?

Before getting too far down the road of planning an interview and its participants, you should consult any relevant organizational policies. This can mean a general fraud policy, an incident response policy, an investigation policy, a general employment agreement or any similar policies. It will depend on the particular organization and industry in which your organization operates.

For example, some organizations might require a representative from the human resources or legal department to be present in any interview in which an employee is questioned regarding allegations of misconduct or fraud. In these situations, a human resources or legal representative should generally refrain from being an active participant in the interview by asking the interviewee questions, although certain circumstances might require more participation by the representative. In most cases, if a human resources or legal representative is present, they should serve as a witness or observer, ensuring that the interview fully complies with any relevant organizational or legal requirements.

Organizational policy often dictates whether an employee is obligated to comply with any investigations carried out by the organization, depending on the jurisdiction and what is allowable. The policy might also specify whether interviewees’ requests for their own legal representation to be present during the interview can or should be granted. However, keep in mind that if an interviewee requests the presence of legal representation and are denied, they are unlikely to be very cooperative or forthcoming during the interview.

Is the interviewee a member of a union?

In some jurisdictions, including the United States, an employee’s membership in a labor union or similar organization (such as a works council in the United Kingdom), might dictate that a representative of their union be present during any interviews conducted as part of an investigation into wrongdoing. These circumstances should be addressed in an organizational policy, but in the absence of a formal policy regarding interviewers, determine whether any employee you plan to interview is a member of a labor union and whether that status impacts the interview.

Does the interviewer work for a governmental organization?

If an investigative interview will be conducted by an agent of the government or a public employee, they might be legally required to allow interviewees to have legal counsel present during the interview. For example, in the United States, public employers must give Miranda warnings (notification of the subject’s right not to answer questions and the right to legal counsel during interrogations) to employees being interviewed about a potentially criminal matter if the government (or its agent) has arrested the employee or deprived them of action in a significant way. It is rare, but not unheard of, that a private employer must give employees Miranda warnings. Generally, a private employer must give Miranda warnings when it detains and questions an employee at the direction of a law enforcement officer and is considered to be acting under color of law.

Does the interviewee speak a different language?

In interviews where the interviewee does not fluently speak the same language as the interviewer, an interpreter should be present in the interview room to ensure questions and answers are communicated accurately and effectively. In such circumstances, you should specifically inform the interviewee that the interpreter is not a representative of the interviewee or the interviewer’s organization, but is there only to facilitate communication. Additionally, interpreters or translators should be sourced from outside the organization, if possible; a fellow employee might have conflicts of interest stemming from their relationship with the interviewee that could impact their interpretation of the interviewee’s testimony, either positively or negatively.

After the interview’s conclusion, fraud examiners should consider allowing the interviewee to leave and then discussing the interview with the interpreter or translator to determine if cultural context related to the interviewee’s answers, demeanor or body language should be taken into consideration. Always research cultural considerations ahead of interviews with subjects from different countries or cultures, but additional feedback from an interpreter or translator could provide additional insight.

How many interviewees is appropriate?

You should not interview two subjects of an investigation at the same time if you can avoid doing so. When multiple subjects are present for an interview, each subject’s answers to questions posed by the interviewer inevitably influences the other subject’s answers to subsequent questions, so fraud examiners should seek to interview subjects individually. There are few absolute rules of interviewing, but this is one of them.

What about interviewers?

There is no general rule regarding the presence of multiple interviewers, so this consideration is purely a matter of preference for the interviewer or whomever is leading the fraud examination. Some fraud examiners might benefit from having an additional interviewer present to offer a contrasting style, to present evidence to the subject or to primarily observe and take notes while the other interviewer handles the questioning. If two interviewers will be present for an interview, they should plan the interview together in advance to agree upon how each of them will conduct their role.

Again, there is no simple formula you can apply broadly to every interview that guarantees success, but when it comes to deciding who is present in the interview room, these considerations should help you determine how best to move forward.

In the upcoming ACFE webinar, “Conducting Interviews On-Screen or In-Person,” a panel of forensic interview experts explore key aspects of an interview — whether performed remotely or in-person — with emphasis placed on preparation, knowledge, integration of information and understanding why, how and when to use documentary evidence. Airs on February 18 at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Featured