LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

16-1	List the five types of interview questions
16-2	Understand how to ask introductory questions
16-3	Explain how to construct informational questions
16-4	Understand the differences between open, closed, and leading questions
16-5	Explain how to close an interview
16-6	Define and explain the purpose of assessment questions
16-7	List some nonverbal clues to deception
16-8	List some verbal clues to deception
16-9	Discuss the methodology of admission-seeking questions
16-10	List the elements of a signed statement

OVERVIEW

In the fraud examination field, there is nothing more important to the successful resolution of a case than the ability to conduct a thorough interview of subjects and witnesses. While accountants and auditors routinely ask questions, the queries rarely confront a subject of wrongdoing. For example, if we return to the fictional case from Chapter 1 of Linda Reed Collins, who is suspected of taking kickbacks in return for awarding business, fraud examination methodology requires us to resolve the allegation from inception to disposition. That means interviewing a number of potential witnesses: her coworkers, subordinates, superiors, associates, and other vendors. And, finally, it means interviewing Collins herself, provided we still have sufficient predication to indicate that she has committed fraud against her employer.

But regardless of whom we interview about what subject, there are five general types of questions that we can ask: introductory, informational, assessment, closing, and admission-seeking. In routine interview situations, where the object is to gather information from neutral or corroborative witnesses, only three of the five types of questions will normally be asked: introductory, informational, and closing. If you have reasonable cause to believe the respondent is not being truthful, assessment questions can be asked. Finally, if you decide with reasonable cause that the respondent is responsible for misdeeds, admission-seeking questions can be posed.

Introductory Questions

Introductory questions serve four primary purposes: to provide an introduction, to establish a rapport between you and the subject, to establish the theme of the interview, and to observe the subject's reactions.

Provide the Introduction You should indicate your name and company, but avoid using titles. As a general proposition, the more informal the interview, the more relaxed the respondent. This leads to better communication. You should also shake hands with the subject. Making physical contact helps break down psychological barriers to communication. Be cautioned against invading the respondent's personal space, however—doing so might make the person uncomfortable. You generally should remain at a distance of four to six feet.

One of the goals is to create a comfortable climate for the subject, one that will encourage open communication. Once the respondent is seated, it is a good idea to ask the subject whether he would like something to drink, whether he needs to take off a coat or jacket, and so forth. It is best to take care of these matters before beginning the interview, so that delays and interruptions can be avoided.

Establish Rapport Some common ground must be established before questioning begins. This is usually accomplished by engaging in small talk for a few minutes. The small talk should not be overdone, but should be used as a means to break the ice and establish a flow of communication between you and the subject.

Establish the Interview Theme The interview theme might be related only indirectly to the actual purpose of the interview. The goal of the theme is to get the respondent to “buy in” to assisting in the interview. The theme for the interview should be one that is logical for the respondent to accept and easy to explain. Normally, the more general, the better. One of the most effective interview themes is that you are seeking the subject's help. Nearly all human beings get satisfaction from helping others. Throughout the interview, it is important to include the subject as part of the process as opposed to making him feel like a target of the inquiry. During this phase of the interview, the respondent must not feel threatened in any way.

Observe Reactions You must be skilled in interpreting the respondent's reactions to questions. The majority of communication between individuals is nonspoken; the subject will provide clues about what he knows—consciously or subconsciously—with his body language, tone of voice, and attitude. You must, therefore, systematically observe the various responses the subject gives during the course of the conversation.

This is done by first posing nonsensitive questions while establishing rapport. By observing the subject's reactions to these kinds of questions, you can establish a baseline for the subject's verbal and nonverbal behavior. Later, when more sensitive questions are asked, you will observe the respondent's reactions. If the respondent's verbal and nonverbal behavior significantly changes as particular questions are posed, you must attempt to determine why. (For a more detailed discussion, see the “Physiology of Deception” section later in this chapter.)

General Rules for the Introductory Phase of the Interview

Don't Interview More Than One Person at a Time One of the basic rules is to question only one person at a time. The testimony of one respondent will invariably influence the testimony of another. There are few hard-and-fast rules to interviewing, but this is one of them.

Privacy Another basic rule is to conduct interviews under conditions of privacy. The interview is best conducted out of the sight and sound of friends, relatives, and fellow employees. People are very reluctant to furnish sensitive information within earshot of others.

Ask Nonsensitive Questions Sensitive questions should be scrupulously avoided until well into the interview. Even then, such questions should be asked only after careful deliberation and planning. During the introductory phase, emotive words of all types generally should be avoided. Such words normally put people on the defensive, making them more reluctant to answer and to cooperate.

EXAMPLE

Instead of	Use
Investigation	Inquiry
Audit	Review
Interview	Ask a few questions
Embezzlement/theft	Shortage or paperwork problems

Get a Commitment for Assistance It is critical to obtain a commitment for assistance from the subject. The commitment must consist of some positive action on the part of the subject; remaining silent or simply nodding the head is not sufficient. You should ask for the commitment before the interview commences, and should encourage the subject to voice a positive, audible “yes” when asked whether he will help. If you encounter silence the first time you ask for assistance, the question should be repeated in a slightly different way until the respondent verbalizes the commitment.

Make a Transitional Statement Once you have gotten a commitment for assistance, you must describe the purpose of the interview in more detail. This is done using a transitional statement, which sets forth a legitimate basis for the questioning and explains to the subject how he fits into the inquiry. After making the transitional statement, you should seek a second commitment for assistance. Assume, for example, that we are interviewing Linda Reed Collins for the first time. If we don't know for sure that she has done anything wrong, we don't want to put her off; to do so would impede the information-gathering process. After you have introduced yourself and asked Ms. Collins for assistance, here is a way you might make a transitional statement:

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “It's pretty routine, really. I'm gathering some information about the purchasing function and how it is supposed to work. It would be helpful to me if I could start by asking you to basically tell me about your job. Okay?”

Seek Continuous Agreement Throughout the interview process—from the introduction to the close—you should attempt to phrase questions so that they can be answered “yes.” It is easier for people to reply in the affirmative than the negative.

Do Not Promise Confidentiality Some subjects may be hesitant to speak to you for fear that the information they share will not be kept confidential. The subject may request a promise of confidentiality for any statements he makes. When this happens, you should inform the subject that all information that is gathered will be provided to individuals who have a “need to know.”

You should not make any promise to the subject that the matters he discusses will be confidential. Any information gathered in an interview belongs to the client or employer, not you. You do not have the right to limit the use of the information or to decide how the information will be used. Therefore, to promise the subject that the information will be kept confidential is misleading to the subject and may taint subsequent use of the information.

Negotiations In some situations, a subject may attempt to negotiate with you, offering information in exchange for something from the company or the client. If this happens, you should keep the discussion open and listen to what the subject may want. However, unless you are authorized to do so, you should not represent to the subject any “quid pro quo” with respect to cooperation. You should tell the subject that any information he provides will be conveyed to the appropriate individual and will be taken into account. To negotiate with a subject is to lose control of the interview and investigation.

Discussing the Source of Allegations In the event that you are following up on a complaint or allegation, you should not discuss either the fact that there is an allegation or the source of the information. It is not your role to provide information. If Collins, for example, asks where the complaint or information originated, you should advise her that as a matter of policy, the basis for any inquiry is not discussed.

Informational Questions

Once the proper format for the interview has been set, you should turn to the fact-gathering portion. Informational questions should be nonconfrontational and nonthreatening, and should be asked for the purpose of gathering unbiased factual information. The great majority of your questions will fall into this category.

There are essentially three types of questions that can be asked: open, closed, and leading. These types of questions are discussed in more detail below. Each is used in a logical sequence to maximize the development of information. If you have reason to believe that the respondent is being untruthful, assessment questions can be posed; otherwise, the interview is brought to a logical close at the end of the informational phase.

Open Questions Open questions are those that are worded in a way that makes it difficult to simply answer them using “yes” or “no.” The typical open question calls for a monologue response, and can be answered in several different ways. During the information phase of the interview, you should endeavor to ask primarily open questions in order to stimulate conversation and allow the subject to convey as much information as possible. An open question does not restrict the subject's response. Thus, instead of asking, “You are in charge of purchasing, aren't you?” which directs the subject's response to one particular area, you might ask, “Would you tell me about your job?” The latter example allows for a broad response during which more information will be conveyed. Later, you can go back and draw out more information about a particular topic.

Closed Questions Closed questions are those that limit the possible responses by requiring a precise answer, usually “yes” or “no.” (“Did you approve this vendor?” or “On what day of the week did it happen?”) Closed questions are used to deal with specifics, such as amounts, dates, and times. Generally, closed questions should be avoided in the informational part of the interview. However, they are used extensively in the closing phase.

Leading Questions Leading questions contain the answer as a part of the question. They are usually used to confirm facts that are already known. An example of a leading question is, “There haven't been any changes in the operation since last year, have there?” This type of question gives the subject much less room to maneuver than the open question “What changes have been made in the operation since last year?” or the closed question “Have there been any changes in the operation since last year?”

Notice how the leading question directs the subject to answer in a particular way: that there have not been any changes. It implies that you already know the answer, and asks the subject to confirm what is already known. The open question allows more latitude, allowing the subject to make any comments he wants about changes in the operation. The closed question narrows the subject's options a bit, but still allows the subject to confirm or deny that changes have been made. Leading questions can be particularly effective in obtaining confessions or getting subjects to make unpleasant admissions.

Question Sequences As a general rule, questioning should proceed from the general to the specific: that is, it is best to gather general information before seeking details. A variation is to “reach backward” with the questions, by beginning with known information and working toward unknown areas. An efficient method of doing this is to recount the known information and then frame the next question as a logical continuation of the facts previously related.

Informational Question Techniques Below are some suggestions for improving the quality of the interview during the information-gathering phase:

• Begin by asking questions that are not likely to cause the respondent to become defensive or hostile.
• Ask the questions in a manner that will develop the facts in the order of their occurrence, or in some other systematic order.
• Ask only one question at a time, and frame the question so that only one answer is required.
• Ask straightforward and frank questions. Generally avoid shrewd approaches.
• Keep interruptions to a minimum, and do not stop the subject's narrative without good reason.
• Give the respondent ample time to answer; don't rush.
• Try to help the respondent remember, but do not suggest answers—and be careful not to imply any particular answer through your facial expressions, gestures, methods of asking questions, or types of questions asked.
• Repeat or rephrase questions, if necessary, to get the desired facts.
• Be sure you understand the answers; if they are not perfectly clear, have the subject interpret them at that time instead of waiting to do so until later.
• Give the subject an opportunity to qualify her answers.
• Separate facts from inferences.
• Have the subject give comparisons by percentages, fractions, estimates of time and distance, and other such methods to ensure accuracy.
• After the respondent has given a narrative account, ask follow-up questions about every key issue that has been discussed.
• Upon conclusion of the direct questioning, ask the respondent to summarize the information given; then, summarize the facts, and have the respondent verify that these conclusions are correct.

Methodology In order to begin the informational phase of the interview, you must first make a transition out of the introductory phase. The transition is a signal that you and the subject are going to begin discussing the substantive issues that are the purpose of the interview. The transition usually is accomplished by asking the subject a nonthreatening question about herself or her duties. It often begins with a restatement of the purpose of the interview: “As I said, I am gathering information about the company's operations. Can you tell me about what you do on a day-to-day basis?”

Begin with Background Questions Assuming that the subject does not have a problem answering the transitional question, you should proceed with a series of easy, open questions designed to follow up on the subject's answer and to expand on the information already provided. Questions like “How long have you been working here?” or “What do you like best about your job?” or “What do your responsibilities involve?” are good examples of background questions that will help you get a better understanding of what the subject does and what information he might possess.

Observe Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior During the period when the respondent is talking, you should discreetly observe the person's verbal and nonverbal behavior; this will help you calibrate the subject's mannerisms. Later, when more sensitive questions are posed, you can look for deviations in the subject's behavior that might indicate discomfort or deception.

Ask Nonleading (Open) Questions You should use open questioning techniques almost exclusively during the informational phase of the interview. The questions should not be accusatory. Once the respondent has answered open questions, you can go back and review the facts in greater detail. If the subject's answers are inconsistent, you should try to clarify them. But you should not challenge the honesty or integrity of the respondent at this stage of the interview; doing so can cause the subject to become defensive, and reluctant to provide information.

Approach Sensitive Questions Carefully Words such as “routine questions” can be used to play down the significance of the inquiry. It is important for information-gathering purposes that you not react excessively to the respondent's statements. You should not express shock, disgust, or similar emotions during the interview. Every answer the subject gives should be treated evenly.

Dealing with Difficult People You invariably will encounter some people who choose to be difficult during an interview. There are five commonsense steps to take with such people:

Do Not React A subject might be belligerent or try to antagonize you, often for no apparent reason. There are three natural reactions for you in this situation: to strike back, to give in, or to terminate the interview. None of these tactics is satisfactory, as none leads to a productive interview. Instead, consciously ensure that you do not react to anger with hostility.

Disarm the Person A common mistake is to try to reason with an unreceptive person. Instead, you should attempt to disarm the hostile person—the best tactic is surprise. If the subject is stonewalling, he expects you to apply pressure; if attacking, he expects you to resist. To disarm the subject, listen, acknowledge the point, and agree in whatever ways you can.

Change Tactics In some situations, changing tactics to reduce hostility might be the only viable option. This means casting what the subject says in a form that directs attention back to the problem, and to the interests of both sides. An effective technique when faced with a hostile subject is to ask what he would do to solve the problem.

Volatile Interviews A volatile interview is one that has the potential to bring about strong emotional reactions in the respondent. A typical scenario for a volatile interview occurs when you interview close friends or relatives of a suspect. Some individuals, by nature, are resentful of authority figures such as fraud examiners and law enforcement officers. It is important for you to know how to approach a volatile interview.

There should be two interviewers involved in potentially volatile situations. This procedure provides psychological strength for you. Additionally, the second person can serve as a witness in the event that the subject later makes allegations of improper conduct.

Potentially volatile interviews should be conducted on a surprise basis, meaning that the subject should be given little or no advance notice of the interview. If the interview is not conducted by surprise, you run the risk of the respondent not showing up, showing up with a witness, or being present with counsel.

In a potentially volatile interview, the order of questions should be out of sequence. This is to keep the volatile respondent from knowing the exact nature of the inquiry and where it is leading. Although you will endeavor to obtain information regarding who, what, why, when, where, and how, the order of the questioning will vary from that of other interviews. This is especially important in situations where the respondent might be attempting to protect herself.

The hypothetical question generally is considered to be less threatening and is, therefore, ideally suited for the potentially volatile interview. For example, in an interview of Smith regarding Jones, rather than saying, “Did Ms. Jones do it?” ask, “Is there any reason why Ms. Jones might have done it?”

Closing Questions

In routine interviews, certain questions are asked at closing for the purposes of reconfirming the facts, obtaining previously undiscovered information, seeking new evidence, and maintaining goodwill.

Reconfirming Facts It is not unusual for the interviewer to have misunderstood or misinterpreted statements made by the subject. Therefore, you should go over key facts to make certain that they have been understood. You should not attempt to revisit all the information that the subject has provided. This is wasteful, unnecessary, and may engender frustration or resentment in the subject. Instead, identify the most relevant facts that the subject provided, and go over each of them in summary form.

It is a good technique to pose leading questions at this phase of the interview. This allows you to state what you understood the subject to have said and gives the subject a chance to confirm or deny your interpretation—“You knew Ms. Jones had some financial problems, is that right?”

Gathering Additional Facts The closing phase also can be used to obtain previously unknown facts. It provides the subject further opportunity to say whatever he wants about the matter at hand. You should make it a point to ask the subject whether he knows of any other documents or witnesses that would be helpful to the investigation. This information is not always volunteered. The theme of the closing phase should be to provide the subject with an opportunity to furnish any relevant facts or opinions that might have been overlooked.

To obtain additional facts, you can simply ask the subject whether there is anything else he would like to say. This gives the (correct) impression that you are interested in all relevant information, regardless of which side it favors. It can be helpful to involve the respondent in solving the case—“If you were trying to resolve this issue, what would you do?”

Concluding the Interview At the conclusion of an interview, it is a good idea to ask respondents whether they believe they have been treated fairly. This is particularly important at the conclusion of an admission-seeking interview, or when the subject has been uncooperative. You generally should ask the question as if it were perfunctory—“Ms. Collins, this is just a standard question: Do you feel that I have treated you fairly in this interview?”

Before concluding, you should always ask the subject whether he has anything else to say. This gives the subject one final chance to add information. You should ask for permission to call the subject if you have any additional questions. This leaves the door open to additional cooperation. It is a good idea to give the subject a business card or a telephone number, and to invite a call if he remembers anything else that might be relevant. Finally, you should shake hands with the subject and thank her for her time and information.

Assessment Questions

The purpose of assessment questions is to establish the credibility of the respondent. Assessment questions are used only when you consider previous statements by the respondent to be inconsistent because of possible deception. By observing the verbal and nonverbal responses of the respondent to these questions, you can assess the respondent's credibility with some degree of accuracy. That assessment will form the basis of your decision about whether to pose admission-seeking questions to obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing.

If the subject has answered all informational questions about the event and you have reason to believe the subject is being deceptive, a theme must be established to justify additional questions. This theme can ordinarily be put forth by saying, “I have a few additional questions.” You should not indicate in any way that these questions are for a different purpose than seeking information.

Norming or Calibrating Norming or calibrating is the process of observing behavior before critical questions are asked, rather than during questioning. Norming should be a routine part of all interviews. People who are being truthful will answer questions one way; those who are being untruthful will generally answer them differently. Assessment questions ask the subject to agree with matters that go against the principles of most honest people. In other words, dishonest people are likely to agree with many of the statements, whereas honest people won't. Assessment questions are designed primarily to get a verbal or nonverbal reaction from the respondent. You will then carefully assess that reaction.

Physiology of Deception It is said that everyone lies, and does so for one of two reasons: to receive rewards or to avoid punishment. In most people, lying produces stress. The human body will attempt to relieve this stress (even in practiced liars) through verbal and nonverbal clues. A practiced interviewer will be able to draw, from a subject's behavior, inferences about the honesty of his statements.

Conclusions concerning behavior must be tempered by a number of factors. The physical environment in which the interview is conducted can affect behavior. If the respondent is comfortable, fewer behavior quirks might be exhibited. The more intelligent the respondent, the more reliable verbal and nonverbal clues will be. If the respondent is biased toward you, or vice versa, this will affect behavior. People who are mentally unstable, or are under the influence of drugs, will be unsuitable to interview. Behavior symptoms of juveniles generally are unreliable. Ethnic and economic factors should be carefully noted. Some cultures, for example, discourage looking directly at someone. Other cultures use certain body language that might be misinterpreted. Because pathological liars often are familiar with advanced interview techniques, they are less likely to furnish observable behavioral clues. You must take all relevant factors into account before drawing any conclusions about the meaning of the verbal and nonverbal signals that a subject demonstrates.

Verbal Clues to Deception

Changes in Speech Patterns Deceptive people often speed up or slow down their speech, or speak louder than usual. There might be a change in voice pitch; as a person becomes tense, the vocal chords constrict. Deceptive people also have a tendency to cough or clear their throats during times of deception.

Repetition of the Question Liars frequently repeat the question asked of them in order to gain more time to think about how to respond to it. The deceptive individual will say, “What was that again?” or use similar language.

Comments Regarding the Interview Deceptive people often comment on the physical environment of the interview room, complaining that it is too hot, too cold, and so on. As they come under increasing stress, they may frequently ask how much longer the interview will take.

Selective Memory In some cases, a deceptive person will have a fine memory for insignificant events, but will claim to be unable to remember important facts.

Making Excuses Dishonest people frequently make excuses about things that look bad for them, such as, “I'm always nervous; don't pay any attention to that.”

Oaths On frequent occasions, dishonest people will attempt to add credibility to their lies by use of emphasis. Expressions such as “I swear to God,” “Honestly,” “Frankly,” or “To tell the truth” are frequently used.

Character Testimony A liar often will request that you, “Check with my wife” or “Talk to my minister” in an attempt to add credibility to a false statement.

Answering with a Question Rather than denying allegations outright, a deceptive person frequently answers with a question such as, “Why would I do something like that?” As a variation, the deceptive person sometimes will question the interview procedure, asking, “Why are you picking on me?”

Overuse of Respect Some deceptive people go out of their way to be respectful and friendly. When accused of wrongdoing, it is unnatural for a person to react in a friendly and respectful manner.

Increasingly Weaker Denials When an honest person is accused of something he did not do, that person is likely to become angry or forceful in making the denial. The more the person is accused, the more forceful the denial becomes. The dishonest person, on the other hand, is likely to make a weak denial. Upon repeated accusations, the dishonest person's denials become weaker, to the point that the person becomes silent.

Failure to Deny Honest people are more likely than dishonest people to deny an event directly. An honest person might offer a simple and clear “no” while a dishonest person will qualify the denial: “No, I did not take a kickback on June 27.” Other qualifying denial phrases include, “To the best of my memory” and “As far as I recall,” or similar language.

Avoidance of Emotive Words A liar often will avoid emotionally provocative terms such as “steal,” “lie,” and “crime.” Instead, the dishonest person frequently prefers “soft” words such as “borrow,” and, referring to a deed in question, “it.”

Refusal to Implicate Other Suspects Both the honest respondent and the liar will have a natural reluctance to name others involved in misdeeds. However, the liar frequently will refuse to implicate possible suspects, no matter how much pressure is applied by you. This is because the culpable person does not want the circle of suspicion to be narrowed.

Tolerant Attitudes Dishonest people typically have tolerant attitudes toward illegal or unethical conduct. In an internal theft case you might ask, “What should happen to this person when he is caught?” The honest person usually will say, “They should be fired/prosecuted.” The dishonest individual, on the other hand, is much more likely to reply, “How should I know?” or “Maybe it is a good employee who got into problems. Perhaps the person should be given a second chance.”

Reluctance to Terminate Interview Dishonest people generally will be more reluctant than honest ones to terminate the interview. The dishonest individual wants to convince you that he is not responsible, so that the investigation will not continue. The honest person, on the other hand, generally has no such reluctance.

Feigned Unconcern The dishonest person often will try to appear casual and unconcerned, and might react to questions with nervous or false laughter, or with feeble attempts at humor. The honest person, on the other hand, typically will be very concerned at being suspected of wrongdoing and will treat your questions seriously.

Nonverbal Clues

Full-Body Motions When asked sensitive or emotive questions, the dishonest person typically will change his posture completely—as if moving away from you. The honest person frequently will lean forward toward you when questions are serious.

Anatomical Physical Responses Anatomical physical responses are those involuntary reactions by the body to fright, such as increased heart rate, shallow or labored breathing, or excessive perspiration. These reactions are typical of dishonest people accused of wrongdoing.

Illustrators Illustrators are the motions made, primarily with the hands, to demonstrate points when talking. During nonthreatening questions, the illustrators will be used at one rate. During threatening questions, the use of illustrators might increase or decrease.

Hands over the Mouth Frequently, dishonest people will cover the mouth with the hand or fingers during deception. This reaction goes back to childhood, when many children cover their mouths when telling a lie. It is done, subconsciously, to conceal the statement.

Manipulators Manipulators are motions such as picking lint from clothing, playing with objects (such as pencils), or holding one's hands while talking. Manipulators are displacement activities, done to reduce nervousness.

Fleeing Positions During the interview, dishonest people often will posture themselves in a “fleeing position.” While the head and trunk might be facing you, the feet and lower portion of the body might be pointing toward the door in an unconscious effort to flee from you.

Crossing the Arms Crossing one's arms over the middle zones of the body is a classic defensive reaction to difficult or uncomfortable questions. A variation is crossing the feet under the chair and locking them. These crossing motions occur mostly when a person is being deceptive.

Reaction to Evidence While trying to be outwardly unconcerned, the guilty person will have a keen interest in implicating evidence. The dishonest person often will look at documents presented by you, attempt to be casual about observing them, and then shove them away, as though wanting nothing to do with the evidence.

Fake Smiles Genuine smiles usually involve the whole mouth; false ones are confined to the upper half. People involved in deception tend to smirk rather than to smile.

Typical Attitudes Displayed by Respondents

Truthful	Untruthful
Calm	Impatient
Relaxed	Tense
Cooperative	Defensive
Concerned	Outwardly unconcerned
Sincere	Overly friendly, polite
Inflexible	Defeated
Cordial	Surly

Methodology Assessment questions should proceed logically from least to most sensitive. In most examples, the basis for the question should be explained before the question is asked. The following questions illustrate the pattern that an interviewer might take in questioning a witness when he has some reason to believe that the respondent, a company employee, has knowledge of a suspected fraud.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “The company is particularly concerned about fraud and abuse. There are laws in effect that will cost the company millions if abuses go on and we don't try to find them. Do you know some of the laws I am talking about?”

EXPLANATION

Most individuals will not know about the laws concerning corporate sentencing guidelines, and will therefore answer “no.” The purpose of this question is to get the respondent to understand the serious nature of fraud and abuse.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Congress passed a law that can levy fines of more than $200 million against companies that don't try to clean their own houses. And $200 million is a lot of money, so you can understand why the company's concerned, can't you?”

EXPLANATION

The majority of people will say “yes” to this question. In the event of a “no” answer, you should explain the issue fully and thereafter attempt to get the respondent's agreement. If agreement is not forthcoming, you should assess why not.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Of course, they are not talking about a loyal employee who gets in a bind. They're talking more about senior management. Have you ever read in the newspapers about what kind of people engage in company misdeeds?”

EXPLANATION

Most people read the newspapers and are at least generally familiar with the problem of fraud and abuse. Agreement by the respondent is expected to this question.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Most of them aren't criminals at all. A lot of times, they're just trying to save their jobs, or just trying to get by because the company is so cheap that they won't pay people what they are worth. Do you know what I mean?”

EXPLANATION

Although the honest person and the dishonest person will both probably answer “yes” to this question, the honest individual is less likely to accept the premise that these people are not wrongdoers. Many honest people will reply to the effect that, while they might understand the motivation, that does not justify stealing.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Why do you think someone around here might be justified in making a secret arrangement with one of the company's vendors?”

EXPLANATION

Because fraud perpetrators frequently justify their acts, the dishonest individual is more likely than the honest person to attempt a justification, such as, “Everyone does it” or “The company should treat people better if they don't want things like this to happen.”

The honest person, however, is much less likely to offer a justification.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “How do you think we should deal with someone who got in a bind and did something wrong in the eyes of the company?”

EXPLANATION

Similar to other questions in this series, the honest person tends to want to punish the criminal, while the culpable individual will typically avoid suggesting a strong punishment, for example: “How should I know? It's not up to me” or, “If he was a good employee, maybe we should give him another chance.”

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Do you think someone in your department might have done something wrong because they thought they were justified?”

EXPLANATION

Most people—honest or dishonest—will answer “no” to this question. However, when you get a “yes,” the culpable person is more likely to do so without elaborating. The honest person, if answering “yes,” will most likely provide details.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Have you ever felt yourself—even though you didn't go through with it—justified in taking advantage of your position?”

EXPLANATION

Again, most people, both honest and dishonest, will answer this question “no.” However, the dishonest person is more likely to acknowledge having at least “thought” of doing it.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Who in your department do you feel would think they were justified in doing something against the company?”

EXPLANATION

The dishonest person will not likely furnish an answer to this question, frequently saying something to the effect that anyone could have a justification. Dishonest individuals will be reluctant to provide any answer that narrows the list of possible suspects. The honest individual, however, is more likely to name names—albeit reluctantly.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Do you believe that most people will tell their manager if they believed a colleague was doing something wrong, like committing fraud against the company?”

EXPLANATION

The honest person is much more likely to report a misdeed herself, and is more likely to respond “yes” to this question. The dishonest person, on the other hand, is more likely to say “no.” When pressed for an explanation, this person might qualify the “no” by adding that the information would be ignored or that it would not be believed.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Is there any reason why someone who works with you would say they thought you might feel justified in doing something wrong?”

EXPLANATION

This is a hypothetical question designed to place the thought in the mind of a wrongdoer that someone has named him as a suspect. The honest person typically will say “no.” The dishonest person is more likely to try to explain by saying something like, “I know there are people around here that don't like me.”

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “What would concern you most if you did something wrong and it was found out?”

EXPLANATION

The dishonest person is likely to accept the proposition of having done something wrong, and to focus on possible repercussions, for example: “I wouldn't want to go to jail.” The honest person, on the other hand, is more likely to reject the notion of having committed a crime. If the honest person does address her concerns about being caught in an illegal act, her concerns will usually be along the lines of disappointing friends or family; the dishonest person is more likely to discuss punitive measures.

Admission-Seeking Questions

Admission-seeking interviews are reserved specifically for individuals whose culpability is reasonably certain. They are posed in a precise order designed to (1) clear an innocent person or (2) encourage the culpable person to confess. Admission-seeking questions have at least three purposes. The first is to distinguish the innocent from the culpable. A culpable individual frequently will confess during the admission-seeking phase of an interview, while an innocent person will not do so unless threats or coercion are used. In some instances, the only way to differentiate the culpable from the innocent is to seek an admission of guilt.

The second purpose is to obtain a valid confession. Confessions, under the law, must be voluntarily given and obtained. The importance of a valid and binding confession to wrongdoing cannot be overstated.

The third purpose of the admission-seeking phase is to obtain from the confessor a written statement acknowledging the facts. Although oral confessions are legally as binding as written ones, written statements have greater credibility. They also discourage a person from later attempting to recant.

Presence of Outsiders It is usually not necessary to inform the subject that he is entitled to have an attorney or other representative present. However, there are cases in which an employee may have the right to have a union representative or even a coworker present. Check with your lawyer if in doubt. Of course, even if the person has a right to have an attorney or other representative present, you should make it clear that the representative will be an observer only; representatives (even attorneys) should not ask questions or object.

Other than the subject and two investigators, no other observers should be permitted in the admission-seeking interview if at all possible. Having others in the room may present legal problems in “broadcasting” the allegation to a third party. Also, it is very difficult to obtain a confession with witnesses present. You should therefore consider whether the case can be proven without the admission-seeking interview.

Miranda Warnings As a general rule, private employers conducting an internal investigation are not required to give Miranda warnings; however, there are exceptions to the rule. See your attorney for details.

Theme Development People will confess to wrongdoing when they perceive that the benefits of confession outweigh the penalties. A good interviewer, through the application of sophisticated techniques, will be able to convince the respondent that the confession is in his best interest.

You must offer a morally acceptable reason for the confessor's behavior. You should not imply that the subject is a bad person, and you should never express disgust, outrage, or moral condemnation about the confessor's actions. Culpable people will almost never confess under these conditions. You must be firm, but you must also project compassion, understanding, and sympathy in order to obtain a confession. The goal is to maximize sympathy and minimize the perception of moral wrongdoing.

It is important that you convey absolute confidence in the premise of the admission you seek from the subject—even if you are not fully convinced. People generally will not confess if they believe the accuser has doubts about their guilt. You should make the accusation in the form of a statement of fact; the subject's guilt should already be assumed in the form of the question. Instead of asking, “Did you do it?” ask, “Why did you do it?”

Remember that the first purpose of an admission-seeking question is to distinguish an innocent person from a culpable one. An innocent person generally will not accept the premise that he is responsible. The guilty person, on the other hand, knows he has committed the act and is not shocked by the premise. The objection, if the person offers one, is more likely to focus on excuses for the conduct rather than outright denial of the conduct.

Obviously, there is a danger during this phase that you will accuse an innocent person of a crime. This is regrettable, but there are some circumstances in which the only way to distinguish the innocent from the culpable is through the use of accusations. You must be careful, however, about opening up yourself or your company to legal liability for the accusation. In general, there is nothing illegal about accusing an innocent person of misdeeds as long as

• The accuser has reasonable suspicion or predication to believe that the accused has committed an offense
• The accusation is made under conditions of privacy
• The accuser does not take any action likely to make an innocent person confess
• The accusation is conducted under reasonable conditions

Steps in the Admission-Seeking Interview

Direct Accusation During the admission-seeking interview, you must at some point make a direct accusation of the subject. The accusation should not be made in the form of a question, but rather as a statement. Emotive words such as steal, fraud, and crime should be avoided during the accusatory process. The accusation should be phrased as though the accused's guilt has already been established. Instead of saying, “We have reason to believe that you . . .” you should say, “Our investigation has clearly established that you . . .” The first statement leaves some ambiguity as to whether the accused really committed the act; the second affirmatively states that the accused committed the act.

Observe Reaction When accused of wrongdoing, the typical culpable person will react with silence. If the accused does deny culpability, those denials usually will be weak. In some cases, the accused will almost mumble the denial. It is common for the culpable individual to avoid outright denials. Instead, that person will give reasons why he could not have committed the act in question. The innocent person sometimes will react with genuine shock at being accused. It is not at all unusual for an innocent person, wrongfully accused, to react with anger. As opposed to the culpable person, the innocent person will usually strongly deny carrying out the act or acts in question.

Repeat Accusation If the accused does not strenuously object after the accusation is made, it should be repeated with the same degree of conviction and strength.

Interrupt Denials Both the truthful and untruthful person normally will object to the accusation and attempt to deny it. A culpable person is more likely than an innocent one to stop short of an outright denial (“I didn't do it”) and more apt to furnish you with explanations of why he is not, and could not be, the responsible party. In instances in which you are convinced of the individual's guilt, it is very important that the denial be interrupted; an innocent person is unlikely to allow you to prevail in stopping the denial, and it becomes extremely difficult for the accused to change a denial once it has been uttered. If the subject denies the accusation and later admits it, he is admitting to lying. This is very hard to do. Therefore, your job is to prevent an outright denial, thereby making it easier for the subject to eventually confess to the act.

Both the innocent and the guilty person will make an outright denial if forced to do so. Accordingly, you should not solicit a denial at this stage of the admission-seeking interview. Instead of asking, “Did you do this?” which gives the subject a chance to say “no,” you should phrase the accusation as though the subject's wrongdoing has already been determined: “Why did you do this?”

Delays One of the most effective techniques for stopping or interrupting a denial is through the use of a delaying tactic. You should not argue with the accused, but rather attempt to delay the outright denial—“I hear what you are saying, but let me finish first. Then you can talk.” The innocent person usually will not allow you to continue to develop the theme.

Interruptions Occasionally, it might be necessary to repeatedly interrupt the accused's attempted denial. Because this stage is crucial, you should be prepared to increase the tone of the interruptions to the point at which the accused is prepared to say: “If you keep interrupting, I am going to have to terminate this conversation.” The culpable individual will find this threatening, since he wants to know the extent of incriminating evidence in your possession.

Reasoning If the above techniques are unsuccessful, you might attempt to reason with the accused and employ some of the tactics normally used for diffusing alibis (see subsequent discussion). In this technique, the accused is presented with evidence implicating him in the crime. You should not disclose all the facts of the case, but rather small portions here and there.

Establish Rationalization Assuming the subject does not confess to the misconduct when faced with direct accusations, you should proceed to establishing a morally acceptable rationalization that will allow the accused to square the misdeed with her conscience. It is not necessary that the rationalization be related to the underlying causes of the misconduct. It is acceptable for the accused to explain away the moral consequences of the action by seizing on any plausible explanation other than being a “bad person.”

If the accused does not seem to relate to one theme, go on to another, and another, until one seems to fit. Thereafter, that theme should be developed fully. Note that the rationalization explains away the moral—though not the legal—consequences of the misdeed. Be cautioned: Do not make any statements leading the accused to believe that he will be excused from legal liability as a result of his cooperation.

Rather than being confrontational, constantly seek agreement from the accused. The goal is to remain in control of the interview while still appearing compassionate and understanding. Again, no matter what conduct the accused has supposedly committed, do not express shock, outrage, or condemnation.

Unfair Treatment Probably the most common explanation for criminal activity in general, and occupational fraud in particular, is in the accused's attempt to achieve equity. As discussed in Chapter 1, studies have shown that counterproductive employee behavior—including stealing—is often motivated by job dissatisfaction. Employees, and others, feel that “striking back” is important to their self-esteem. The sensitive interviewer can capitalize on these feelings by suggesting to the accused that he is a victim: “If you had been fairly treated, this wouldn't have happened, would it?”

Inadequate Recognition Some employees might feel that their efforts have gone completely without notice by the company. As with similar themes, you should be empathetic: “It looks to me that you have given a lot more to this company than they have recognized. Isn't that right?”

Financial Problems Occupational criminals, especially executives and upper management, frequently engage in fraud to conceal a problematic financial condition—either personal or business. You can exploit this theme by expressing sympathy and understanding for the subject's financial problems, as well as understanding for the misconduct: “I know a lot of your investments have taken a beating. I don't know how you managed to keep everything afloat as well as you did. You just did this to stay alive financially, didn't you?”

Aberration of Conduct Many fraudsters believe that their conduct constitutes an aberration in their lives—that it is not representative of their true character. You might establish this theme by agreeing that the misconduct was an aberration: “I know this is totally out of character for you. I know that this would never have happened if something weren't going on in your life. Isn't that right?”

Family Problems Some people commit fraud because of family problems—financial woes caused by divorce, an unfaithful spouse, or demanding children. Men especially—who have been socially conditioned to tie their masculinity to earning power—might hold the notion that wealth connotes family respect. For their part, women have been found to commit white-collar crime in the name of their responsibility to the needs of their husbands and children. The skillful interviewer can convert this motive to his advantage: “I know you have had some family problems. I know your divorce has been difficult for you. And I know how it is when these problems occur. You would have never done this if it hadn't been for the family problems, isn't that right?”

Accuser's Actions You should not disclose the accuser's identity if it is not already known. But in cases where the accuser's identity is known to the accused, it can be helpful to blame the accuser for the problem. Or, the problem can be blamed on the company: “I really blame a large part of this on the company. If some of the things that went on around this company were known, it would make what you've done seem pretty small in comparison, wouldn't it?”

Stress, Drugs, Alcohol Employees sometimes will turn to drugs or alcohol to reduce stress. In some instances, the stress itself will lead to aberrant behavior in a few individuals. A rationalization established by you could play on the subject's substance abuse: “You're one of the most respected people in this company. I know you have been under tremendous pressure to succeed. Too much pressure, really. That's behind what happened, isn't it?”

Revenge Similar to other themes, revenge can be effectively developed as a justification for the subject's misconduct. In this technique, you attempt to blame the offense on the accused's feeling that he needed to “get back” at someone or something: “Linda, what has happened is out of character for you. I think you were trying to get back at your supervisor because he passed you over for a raise. I would probably feel the same. That's what happened, isn't it?”

Depersonalizing the Victim In cases involving employee theft, an effective technique is to depersonalize the victim. The accused is better able to cope with the moral dilemma of her actions if the victim is a faceless corporation or agency: “It's not like what you've done has really hurt one person. Maybe you thought of it this way: ‘At most, I've cost each shareholder a few cents.’ Is that the way it was?”

Minor Moral Infraction In many cases you can reduce the accused's perception of the moral seriousness of the matter. This is not to be confused with the legal seriousness. Fraud examiners and interviewers should be careful to avoid making statements that could be construed as relieving legal responsibility. Instead, you should play down the moral seriousness of the misconduct. One effective way is through comparisons: “This problem we have doesn't mean you're ‘Jack the Ripper.’ When you compare what you've done to things other people do, this situation seems pretty insignificant, doesn't it?”

Altruism In many cases, the moral seriousness of the matter can be reduced by claiming the subject acted for the benefit of others. This especially is true if the accused views herself as a caring person: “I know you didn't do this for yourself. I have looked into this matter carefully, and I think you did this to help your husband, didn't you?”

Genuine Need In some cases, employee fraud is predicated by genuine financial need. For example, the accused might be paying for the medical care of sick parents or a child. In those cases, the following techniques might be effective: “You're like everyone else: You have to put food on the table. But in your position, it is very difficult to ask for help. You genuinely needed to do this to survive, didn't you?”

Diffuse Alibis Even if the accused is presented with an appropriate rationalization, it is likely that he will continue to deny culpability. When you are successful in stopping denials, the accused will frequently present one or more reasons why he could not have committed the act in question. You must quickly and decisively diffuse these alibis by convincing the accused of the weight of the evidence. Alibis generally can be diffused using one of the following methods.

Display Physical Evidence It is common for most culpable people to overestimate the amount of physical evidence that you possess. You should try to reinforce this notion through the way the evidence is presented to the accused. The physical evidence—in fraud matters, usually documents—generally should be displayed one piece at a time, in reverse order of importance. In this way, the full extent of the evidence is not immediately known by the accused. When the accused no longer denies culpability, you should stop displaying evidence.

Each time a document or piece of evidence is displayed, you should note its significance. During this phase, the accused is still trying to come to grips with being caught; thus, you should expect that the accused will attempt to lie. As with denials, you should interrupt the expression of alibis and other falsehoods before they are fully articulated. Once the alibis are diffused, you should return to the theme being developed.

Discuss Witnesses Another technique for diffusing alibis is to discuss the testimony of witnesses. The objective is to give enough information about what other people would say without providing too much. Ideally, your statement will create the impression in the mind of the accused that many people are in a position to contradict her story.

Again: Be cautioned about furnishing enough information to the accused to enable her to identify the witnesses. This might place the witness in a difficult position, and the accused could contact the witness in an effort to influence testimony. The accused could take reprisals against potential witnesses, though such cases are rare.

Discuss Deceptions The final technique is to discuss the accused's deceptions. The purpose is to appeal to the person's logic, not to scold or degrade. This technique is sometimes the only one available if physical evidence is lacking. As with other interview situations, the word “lying” should be avoided.

Present Alternative After the accused's alibis have been diffused, he normally will become quiet and withdrawn. Some people in this situation might cry. (If so, be comforting. Do not discourage the accused from showing emotion.) In this stage the accused is deliberating whether to confess. At this point you should present an alternative question to the accused. The alternative question forces the accused to make one of two choices. One alternative allows the accused a morally acceptable reason for the misdeed; the other paints the accused in a negative light. Regardless of which answer the accused chooses, he is acknowledging guilt: “Did you plan this deliberately, or did it just happen?” or “Did you just want extra money, or did you do this because you had financial problems?”

Benchmark Admission Either way the accused answers the alternative question, he has made a culpable statement, or benchmark admission. Once the benchmark admission is made, the subject has made a subconscious decision to confess. The questions above are structured so that the negative alternative is presented first, followed by the positive alternative. In this way, the accused has only to nod or say “yes” for the benchmark admission to be made. The accused might also answer in the negative: “I didn't do it deliberately.”

In the cases where the accused answers the alternative question in the negative, you should press further for a positive admission: “Then you did it to take care of your financial problems?”

Should the accused still not respond to the alternative question with a benchmark admission, you should repeat the questions or variations thereof until the benchmark admission is made. It is important that you get a response that is tantamount to a commitment to confess. The questions for the benchmark admission should be constructed as leading questions, so that they can be answered “yes” or “no,” rather than requiring any sort of explanation; that will come later.

Reinforce Rationalization Once the benchmark admission has been made, you should reinforce the confessor's decision by returning to the theme for the rationalization. This will help the confessor feel comfortable and will let the person know that you do not look down on her. After reinforcing the subject's rationalization, you should make the transition into the verbal confession, in which the details of the offense will be obtained.

Verbal Confession The transition to the verbal confession is made when the accused furnishes the first detailed information about the offense. Thereafter, it is your job to probe gently for additional details—preferably those that would be known only to the perpetrator. As with any interview, there are three general approaches to obtaining the verbal confession: chronologically, by transaction, or by event. The approach to be taken should be governed by the circumstances of the case.

During the admission-seeking interview, it is best to first confirm the general details of the offense. For example, you will want the accused's estimates of the amounts involved, other parties to the offense, and the location of physical evidence. After these basic facts are confirmed, you can then return to the specifics, in chronological order. It is imperative that you obtain an early admission that the accused knew the conduct in question was wrong. This confirms the essential element of intent.

Because of the nature of the psychology of confessions, most confessors will lie about one or more aspects of the offense despite confirming overall guilt. When this happens during the verbal confession, you should make a mental note of the discrepancy and proceed as if the falsehood had been accepted as truthful.

Such discrepancies should be saved until all other relevant facts have been provided by the accused. If the discrepancies are material to the offense, you should either resolve them at the end of the verbal confession or wait and correct them in the written confession. If they are immaterial to the offense, the information can be omitted from the written confession altogether.

You should focus on obtaining the following items of information during the verbal confession:

• Confirmation that the accused knew that the conduct was wrong
• Facts known only to the perpetrator
• Estimated numbers of instances or amounts
• A motive for the offense
• When the misconduct began
• When/whether the misconduct was terminated
• Others who were involved
• Physical evidence
• Disposition of proceeds
• Location of assets
• Specifics of each offense

Confirmation That the Accused Knew That the Conduct Was Wrong Intent is an essential element in all criminal and civil actions involving fraud. Not only must the confessor have committed the act, but he must also have intended to commit it: “As I understand it, you did this, and you knew it was wrong, but you didn't really mean to hurt the company, is that right?” (Note that the question is phrased so that the confessor acknowledges intent, but “didn't mean to hurt anyone.” Make sure the question is not phrased so that the confessor falsely says that he “didn't mean to do it.”)

Facts Known Only to the Perpetrator Once the intent question has been solved, the questioning turns to those facts known only to the person who committed the crime. These facts include—at minimum—the accused's estimates of the number of instances of wrongful conduct, as well as of the total amount of money involved. It is best to use open questions here to force the subject to provide as much information about the offense as possible.

Estimated Numbers of Instances/Amounts In fraud matters in particular, it is common for the accused to underestimate the amount of funds involved as well as the number of instances. This is probably because of a natural tendency of the human mind to block out unpleasant matters. You should take the figures provided by the confessor with a grain of salt. If the accused's response is “I don't know,” start with high amounts and gradually work down.

A Motive for the Offense Motive is an important element of establishing the offense. The motive might be the same as the theme you developed earlier—or it might not. The most common response when a subject is asked about his motive is “I don't know.” You should probe for additional information, but if it is not forthcoming, attribute the motive to the theme developed earlier. The motive should be established along the lines below.

When the Misconduct Began You will need to determine the approximate date and time that the offense started: “I am sure you remember the first time this happened.” Once the subject has admitted to remembering the first instance (which will usually play into the motive), you should simply ask him to “tell me about it.” This is phrased as an open question to get the subject to provide as much information as possible.

When/Whether the Misconduct Was Terminated In fraud matters, especially occupational fraud, the offenses usually are ongoing. That is, the fraudster seldom stops before he is discovered. If appropriate, you should seek the date the offense terminated.

Others Who Were Involved Most frauds are solo ventures—committed without the aid of an accomplice. However, you should still seek to determine whether other parties were involved. It is best to use soft language: “Who else knew about this besides you?”

By asking who else “knew,” you are, in effect, not only asking for the names of possible conspirators, but also about others who might have known what was going on but failed to report it. This question should be leading: not “Did someone else know?”, but rather “Who else knew?”

Physical Evidence Physical evidence—regardless of how limited it might be—should be obtained from the confessor. In many instances, illicit income from fraud is deposited directly in the perpetrator's bank accounts. You should ask the confessor to surrender banking records voluntarily for review. It is recommended that you obtain a separate written authorization, or that language be added to the confession noting the voluntary surrender of banking information. The first method is generally preferable. If other relevant records can be obtained only by the confessor's consent, permission to review those records should also be sought during the oral confession.

Disposition of Proceeds If it has not come out earlier, you should find out what, in general, happened to any illicit income derived from the misdeeds. It is typical for the money to have been used for frivolous or ostentatious purposes. It is important, however, that the interviewer cast the confessor's actions in a more positive light.

Location of Assets In appropriate situations, you will want to find out whether there are residual assets that the confessor can use to reduce losses. Rather than asking the accused, “Is there anything left?” the question should be phrased, “What's left?”

Specifics of Each Offense Once the major hurdles have been overcome, return to the specifics of each offense. Generally, it is best to start with the first instance and work forward chronologically.

Because this portion of the interview is information-seeking in nature, use open questions. It is best to seek the independent recollections of the confessor first before displaying physical evidence. If the confessor cannot independently recall something, documents can be used to refresh her recollection. It is generally best to resolve all issues relating to a particular offense before proceeding to the next offense.

Taking a Signed Statement At the conclusion of the admission-seeking interview, it is best to obtain a written confession from the subject, if possible. As was discussed earlier, a written statement has greater credibility than an oral confession and discourages a culpable person from later attempting to recant. The information to be included in the signed statement is essentially the same as that which you should obtain in an oral confession. There are, however, a few extra inclusions that should be made in a written confession.

Voluntary Confessions The general law of confessions requires that confessions be obtained, and made, completely voluntarily. The statement should contain language expressly stating that the confession is being made voluntarily.

Intent There is no such thing as an accidental fraud or crime. Both require as part of the elements of proof the fact that the confessor knew the conduct was wrong and intended to commit the act. This can best be accomplished by using precise language in the statement that clearly describes the act (e.g., “I wrongfully took assets from the company that weren't mine” versus “I borrowed money from the company without telling anyone”).

As a general rule, strong, emotive words, such as “lie” and “steal,” should be avoided, lest the confessor balk at signing the statement. Yet the wording must still be precise:

EXAMPLE

Instead of	Use
Lie	I knew the statement was untrue.
Steal	I wrongfully took the property of ________ for my own benefit
Embezzle	I wrongfully took ________'s property, which had been entrusted to me, and used it for my own benefit.
Fraud	I knowingly told ________ an untrue statement and he/she/they relied on it.

Approximate Dates of Offense Unless the exact dates of the offense are known, the word “approximately” must precede any dates of the offense. If the confessor is unsure about the dates, language to that effect should be included.

Approximate Amounts of Losses Include the approximate losses, making sure they are labeled as such. It is satisfactory to state a range (“probably not less than ________or more than ________”).

Approximate Number of Instances Ranges also are satisfactory for the number of instances. The number is important because it helps establish intent by showing a repeated pattern of activity.

Willingness to Cooperate It makes it easier for the confessor when he perceives that the statement includes language portraying her in a more favorable light. The confessor can convert that natural tendency by emphasizing cooperation and willingness to make amends: “I am willing to cooperate in helping undo what I have done. I promise that I will try to repay whatever damages I caused by my actions.”

Excuse Clause The confessor's moral excuse should be mentioned. You should make sure that the confessor's excuse does not diminish her legal responsibility for the actions. Instead of using language such as “I didn't mean to do this”—which implies lack of intent—focus on an excuse that provides only a moral explanation for the misconduct: “I wouldn't have done this if it had not been for pressing financial problems. I didn't mean to hurt anyone.”

Have the Confessor Read the Statement The confessor must acknowledge that he read the statement, and should initial all the pages of the statement. It might be advisable to insert intentional errors in the statement so that the confessor will notice them. The errors are crossed out, the correct information is inserted, and the confessor is asked to initial the changes. Whether this step is advisable depends on the likelihood that the confessor will attempt to retract the statement or claim that it was not read.

Truthfulness of Statement The written statement should state specifically that it is true. However, the language also should allow for mistakes. Typical language reads, “This statement is true and complete to the best of my current recollection.”

Preparing a Signed Statement There is no legal requirement that a statement must be in the handwriting or wording of the subject. In fact, it is generally not a good idea to let a confessor draft the statement. Instead, you should prepare the statement for the confessor to sign.

The confessor should read and sign the statement without undue delay. Instead of asking the confessor to sign the statement, say, “Please sign here.” Although it is not legally required, it is still a good idea to have two people witness the signing of a statement.

There should not be more than one written statement for each offense. If facts are inadvertently omitted, they can later be added to the original statement as an addendum. For legal purposes, you should prepare separate statements for unrelated offenses, in the event the target is tried separately for each offense.

You should preserve all notes taken during an interview, especially those concerning a confession. Having access to pertinent notes can aid in a cross-examination regarding the validity of a signed statement. Stenographic notes, if any, also should be preserved. Once a confession has been obtained, you should substantiate it through additional investigation, if necessary.

Here is a sample of the way the confession of Linda Reed Collins might be worded:

SUMMARY

Nothing is more important to the successful resolution of fraud allegations than the ability to conduct penetrating and legally binding interviews of witnesses and suspects. Regardless of the type of interview being conducted or who is being interviewed, there are five types of questions that can be asked.

Introductory questions set the tone of the interview and provide a way for an interviewer to introduce the subject matter being discussed. Informational questions are at the heart of the interview. If you have no reason to believe that the witness is providing false information, and if the person being interviewed is not suspected of wrongdoing, closing questions are asked in order to close the interview. Should the purpose of the interview be to obtain a legally admissible confession of guilt, you will ask assessment questions rather than close the interview; these questions are designed to give you an idea of whether the subject is prone to telling the truth. Admission-seeking questions are constructed in a certain order to improve the likelihood that a subject will confess to wrongdoing.

Because lying does not come naturally to most people, they give off both verbal and nonverbal clues to deception. You must be alert to these clues during the interview. If a subject confesses to wrongdoing during the interview, you should reduce the verbal confession to writing.

ESSENTIAL TERMS

Norming or calibrating The process of observing behavior before critical questions are asked, with the purpose of helping to assess the subject's verbal and nonverbal reactions to threatening questions.

Oaths Certain phrases used frequently by liars to add weight to their false testimony. Examples include “honestly,” “frankly,” “to tell the truth,” and “I swear to God.”

Character testimony An attempt by a witness to add credibility to a lie by requesting that you “check with my minister” or “ask my wife.”

Illustrators Motions made, primarily by the hands, to demonstrate points when talking. The use of illustrators is usually altered during deception.

Anatomical physical responses The body's involuntary reactions to fright; they include increased heart rate, shallow or labored breathing, and excessive perspiration. These reactions are typical of dishonesty.

Manipulators Motions made by individuals such as picking lint from clothing, playing with objects (such as pencils), or holding one's hands while talking. Manipulators are displacement activities, ways of reducing nervousness.

Fleeing position A posture adopted by an individual under stress during an interview. The head is facing the interviewer, while the feet and legs are pointed toward the door in an unconscious effort to flee the interview.

Benchmark admission A small admission made to wrongdoing that signals a subject's willingness to confess. It is made as a result to an alternative question posed by the interviewer that gives the subject two ways to answer, either of which is an admission of culpability: “Did you just want extra money, or did you do this because you had financial problems?”

Excuse clause A clause inserted in a signed statement that encourages the confessor to sign the statement. It offers a moral, not legal, excuse for the wrongdoing: “I wouldn't have done this if it had not been for pressing financial problems. I didn't mean to hurt anyone.”

REVIEW QUESTIONS

16-1 (Learning objective 16-1) What are the five types of interview questions?

16-2 (Learning objective 16-2) What four steps are involved in introductory questions?

16-3 (Learning objective 16-3) What topics should be covered during informational questioning?

16-4 (Learning objective 16-4) When should open questions be used?

16-5 (Learning objective 16-4) When should closed questions be used?

16-6 (Learning objective 16-4) When should leading questions be used?

16-7 (Learning objective 16-5) What are the purposes of closing questions?

16-8 (Learning objective 16-6) What is the purpose of assessment questions, and when are they asked?

16-9 (Learning objective 16-7) What are some nonverbal clues to deception?

16-10 (Learning objective 16-8) What are some of the verbal clues to deception?

16-11 (Learning objective 16-9) What are the steps used in admission-seeking questions?

16-12 (Learning objective 16-10) What are the key elements of a signed statement?

DISCUSSION ISSUES

16-1 (Learning objective 16-1) Why are all five types of interview questions not used in all interviews?

16-2 (Learning objective 16-2) Why are introductory questions so important to an interview's success?

16-3 (Learning objective 16-3) If the witness becomes difficult during the informational phase of an interview, how should this be handled?

16-4 (Learning objective 16-4) Why does the interviewer not use closed or leading questions during the information-gathering phase of the interview?

16-5 (Learning objective 16-5) Why is establishing goodwill with the witness important during the closing phase of the interview?

16-6 (Learning objective 16-6) What is the theory behind how assessment questions work?

16-7 (Learning objectives 16-7 and 16-8) What is the connection between calibrating a witness and verbal and nonverbal clues to deception?

16-8 (Learning objective 16-9) Why are admission-seeking questions asked in a specific order?

16-9 (Learning objective 16-10) Why is the excuse clause used when preparing a signed statement?