The Tearful Admission, the Exit Request and the Draft That Says 'Stole'
During an interview about ghost vendors in accounts payable, the AP clerk - non-union, no representative present, seated in a conference room with the door unlocked - initially denies adding any vendor she did not have paperwork for. Shown a printed vendor master report listing six vendors that share her home postcode, she becomes tearful and says, 'I made some mistakes, but I never meant to hurt anyone. Can I go now?' The interview has run 95 minutes. You have not yet asked about the $212,000 paid to those six vendors, whether anyone else was involved, or whether she kept any records. Your draft report, written before the interview, states: 'The employee stole $212,000 through fictitious vendors.'
1. What do you do in the next five minutes, and how do you handle her request to leave?
Read the worked answer
On the request to leave: she can leave. This is a non-custodial workplace interview in an unlocked room. You may not block the door, imply she is detained, or tell her she must stay. Say it plainly: 'You are free to go at any time. This is a workplace interview, not an arrest.'
Then make exactly one attempt to hold the moment.
- 'Before you decide, would you give me ten more minutes? I would rather hear your explanation than rely on documents alone.'
- If she agrees, slow down. A tearful, ambiguous statement is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one.
- Do not deliver the six vendors and the $212,000 in a single accusatory burst. Ask open questions: how were the vendors set up; who else had access to your login; where would the paperwork be.
- Do not offer leniency, confidentiality from management, or 'this stays between us'. You cannot deliver on any of it, and it destroys the statement.
- If she declines and leaves, let her go. Ask for the location of any documents in her possession and note her exact words as she leaves.
Immediately afterwards, write the note. Exact admission, exact request, time, elapsed 95 minutes, unlocked door, no threats or promises, and that she was told she was free to leave. That note is your evidence that the interview was voluntary, and it will be attacked first.
2. Critique the draft sentence and rewrite it as a proper finding.
Read the worked answer
Problems with 'The employee stole $212,000 through fictitious vendors.'
- 'Stole' is a legal conclusion. The investigator establishes facts; a court or the disciplinary process determines culpability. Using the word invites a defamation or unfair-dismissal challenge and hands opposing counsel an easy target.
- $212,000 is not the loss. It is gross payments to six vendors. Loss is gross less any legitimate services delivered, less recoveries, less duplicates. You have not established that all six vendors are fictitious - only that they share a postcode.
- Overlap is a red flag, not proof of control or non-delivery.
- The admission does not support the number. 'I made some mistakes' is ambiguous; it is not a confession to $212,000.
Rewrite.
- Condition: Payments totalling $212,000 were made to six vendors recorded at addresses associated with the accounts payable clerk's home postcode between January and December. Vendor set-up and invoice approval were performed under the clerk's user ID in 47 of 51 instances.
- Criteria: Policy requires vendor set-up by an employee other than the approver and prohibits employees from holding an interest in a company vendor.
- Cause: The vendor master did not enforce segregation between creator and approver.
- Effect: Up to $212,000 was paid to vendors whose relationship to the employee has not yet been established; the recoverable amount is under review.
- Recommendation: Enforce creator/approver segregation; retrospectively review all vendors created by AP staff in the last 24 months.
- Status: Investigation ongoing. No conclusion on intent or on the final loss figure has been reached.
3. Specify what the interview memo must contain, what is verbatim versus summarised, and what to do if she later disputes the note.
Read the worked answer
Memo contents.
- Date, start and end time, location, physical setup (door unlocked, nobody between her and the exit).
- Attendees and roles; confirmation that no representative was requested or present.
- The purpose as stated to her, and the voluntariness statement.
- Questions asked - summary acceptable for background - and verbatim, in quotation marks, for every admission, denial, mention of another person, and the request to leave.
- Observations: demeanour, tears, pauses, documents handed over.
- Any document shown, with an identifier.
- A closing note on what was not covered, so a later reader sees the interview was incomplete rather than exculpatory.
- Note-taker signature and date, plus reviewer sign-off.
Verbatim versus summary. Verbatim for anything that could be quoted in a disciplinary hearing. Summarise the administrative preamble.
If she disputes the note. Do not amend the original. Add a dated addendum recording the disagreement and offer a follow-up meeting at which she can give her own written account. An altered contemporaneous note is worth less than an honest one with an addendum attached.
Retention and disclosure. Case file, defined retention period, named access list. Assume the memo is disclosable and do not write anything you would not defend on the stand - but do not assume it is privileged, because investigator notes rarely are.