Fraud Investigation and Interviewing
A structured, evidence-led process
A fraud investigation follows a plan: define scope, objectives, legal authority and team; gather and secure evidence; analyse; interview; report; then pursue recovery and control remediation. Evidence must be relevant, admissible and preserved. Start the chain of custody at the moment of seizure, retain originals, work from copies, and log every transfer and access.
Interview sequence matters: neutral or peripheral witnesses first, then knowledgeable witnesses, then the subject last, so the interviewer holds maximum information before any confrontation. Questions move from open ('walk me through the procurement process') to closed, then admission-seeking. The PEACE model (Planning, Engage and explain, Account, Closure, Evaluate) is a non-accusatory framework. Accusatory or confrontational techniques are legally risky and can render a confession involuntary.
Major trap: treating non-verbal cues - averted eyes, fidgeting, sweating - as reliable indicators of deception. Research shows they are weak. Base conclusions on inconsistencies between the account, the documents and the data. Other traps: promising leniency or threatening prosecution to obtain a confession, interviewing the suspect before securing documentary evidence, and failing to allow representation or a caution where the law requires it.
Rule of thumb: never interview the prime suspect until you could prove the case without that interview.
Worked example: a tip alleges a procurement officer inflates prices. Sequence: image the procurement system and email; interview the receiving clerk and a fellow buyer; interview the supervisor; confront the officer with a market-price comparison of invoices; obtain a written statement; issue a report with remediation recommendations.