Interviewing the Fraudster: A Strategic Approach
/
Interviewing suspects can be one of the most valuable and illuminating components of any investigation. It’s crucial for fraud examiners to constantly evaluate and improve their tactics and approaches.
In an enlightening virtual session titled “Interviewing the Fraudster: A Strategic Approach” during the 2021 Fraud Conference Europe, Jonathan Davison shared anecdotes from his professional career to exemplify how interviewing has evolved and explained new strategies that viewers might incorporate into their investigations.
Changes to interview approaches
Davison began by explaining that the way fraud examiners interview fraud suspects has changed. Previously, interviewing took an interrogative approach, with the objective focused on gaining a confession. Those approaches often sidelined the vast amount of information examiners could uncover throughout the interview, even without a confession.
Additionally, according to Davison, contemporary studies show many mistakes in trying to use body language and micro-expressions as proof of culpability. Davison played a video called “The Impact of Human Factors on Criminal Investigations: Lie Detection and Demeanor Evidence” to demonstrate this fact.
The video featured Dr. Par-Anders Granhag, a professor of psychology at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who explained that people often underestimate the skill needed to decipher another person’s body language. Since it is quite difficult, nonverbal cues do not yield high levels of accurate accusation.
In the video, Dr. Granhag explained two faulty interview approaches:
The Leakage Hypothesis: the theory that a person is unable to hide their lies, and their deception leaks out through their facial expressions
The Reid Technique: an interrogation protocol that analyzes behavior to determine innocence or guilt and uses pressure to obtain confessions
The problem with these approaches, the video explains, is that both liars and truth-tellers display micro-expressions, and there is no micro-expression that only liars show that would indicate guilt. Additionally, research demonstrates there is no association between deception and nonverbal cues, such as gaze, fidgeting or restlessness. Because there are no reliable psychological cues, using micro-expressions does not guarantee better performance in investigations.
Dr. Granhag explained that a paradigm shift is occurring in which examiners are using a cognitive approach to interviewing instead of relying on emotional and nonverbal techniques.
The cognitive approach to interviewing
A cognitive approach uses background information that interviewers research in advance in order to optimize interview outcomes. “If you’re interviewing a suspected fraudster, the question I would ask everyone is what do you need to know about that individual,” Davison said.
The first steps in preparing for an interview, he explained, should be to learn everything someone possibly can about the interviewee. Davison suggested searching on the internet and social media, looking through HR records and speaking to supervisors and colleagues. He likened this approach to examining a computer or mobile phone. “I need to understand how it works, how it operates.”
Interviewers can examine and collate the background information to build a foundation instead of relying on the guesswork of body language and nonverbal cues. This baseline can also help determine how to begin the interview. Davison suggested a few tactics for the interview:
Look at speech content, such as inconsistencies between what interviewers know and what the person says.
Make note of information that can be validated and apply an investigative mindset to go beyond the face value of statements.
Test the reliability of what interviewees say against what is already known.
Ask unanticipated questions or very straightforward questions at unexpected times.
Request the interviewee to respond in a format this is not expected, such as drawing a sketch or creating a timeline of the events.
Have an effective methodology for analyzing and evaluating information and taking notes during the interview.
Anticipate many potential responses and be ready to react accordingly based on what the interviewee says.
As Davison noted, “The interview is the only window of opportunity you get to forensically examine what people are thinking.” By taking exhaustive preparations, interviewers can make the best use of their time with a subject.
“The principal of this model … is really taking yourself out of you being a fraud investigator and putting yourself in the shoes of the person that you’re interviewing,” Davison advised. Doing so can alter how examiners anticipate evidence and how they change their behavior and their approach based on the subject’s disclosures.
Furthermore, Davison emphasized maintaining a rapport-based approach in cognitive interviewing. “It’s not an interrogation; it’s a conversation with a purpose.” He added, “If you’re supportive of someone, and you’re interested, you’re going to get more information from them.” Maintaining eye contact and using effective listening skills while remaining professional can lead to desired results.
By treating an interview as a conversation, examiners can also more easily respond to new information as it is revealed during the interview. A single piece of information can yield countless more questions, so it’s important to think strategically and allow for flexibility. Davison encouraged investigators to look at the evidence they have and make an assessment about where they are going to tactically use their evidence during the interview. However, interviewers should be ready to change their plan at any given time. It’s beneficial to continuously question whether a more direct or a more indirect approach would be most useful, and whether a more gradual reveal of evidence would be better.
Implementing these strategies
Davison believes that “one size does not fit all.” The scientific methodology of interviewing is a framework that contains several aspects that can enhance investigations. These methods can be used together or on their own depending on the individual and on differing levels of cooperation.
While Davison suggested every interview should be strategically planned, he also urged session attendees to have flexibility around their strategies and constantly evaluate their approaches. Davison asked the audience, “Do we actually make some assessment of our strategies and tactics after every interview, or are we playing the same way?” Just as a soccer team adjusts its approach depending on each opposing team’s strengths and weaknesses, so too should fraud examiners modify their approaches based on each situation.
Since studies continue to prove there might not be any difference between nonverbal cues shown by a truth-teller and those shown by a liar, cognitive interviewing is more likely to lead to successful investigations. Davison’s suggested strategies illustrate how fraud examiners can take their interviewing to greater heights and aim for more concrete confessions. “There’s no court anywhere in this world that will look at body language and definitively use that as evidence in a court of law,” he said. “Anything that’s evidence has to be verbal.”
