Interviewing, Information Sharing and Collaboration with Law Enforcement
Interviewing, Information Sharing and Collaboration with Law Enforcement
This domain tests how to plan and conduct interviews without contaminating evidence, and the lawful boundaries of sharing information internally, with financial intelligence units and with police.
Core rules
- Know your interview type: witness, subject or employee. Rights, cautions and representation entitlements differ by jurisdiction and by category.
- Plan the interview: objectives, chronology, documents to hand, open questions first, then a funnel towards specific and closed questions. Avoid leading questions and avoid disclosing detail the interviewee could use to construct an account.
- Record notes with time, attendees, representation and consent to record. Never promise confidentiality or leniency you cannot deliver.
- No coercion, threats or inducements. In many jurisdictions the investigator does not caution or seek admissions; that is law enforcement's role.
- Sharing: internal need-to-know; the FIU through the suspicious activity report; foreign FIUs through Egmont principles and memoranda of understanding; law enforcement through lawful process or permitted voluntary disclosure. The US has the 314(a) request and 314(b) safe harbour; the UK has the National Crime Agency and the defence against money laundering.
- Tipping-off prohibitions limit what may be said to the customer about a report or an investigation.
Worked example
A teller reports that a customer asked how to avoid "the $10,000 form". Interview the teller as a witness: begin with an open question asking for a description of the conversation, then narrow to date, exact words and who raised the form first, then document it. Do not ask the teller to put follow-up questions to the customer; that risks tipping off and contaminates the evidential value of the account.
Traps that cost marks
- Leading questions that put words into a witness's mouth.
- Telling the customer that a report has been filed.
- Sharing report details with a relationship manager who has no need to know.
- Assuming a memorandum of understanding overrides local data protection law.