Navigating Tough Conversations in Fraud Investigations

When Jonathan Davison worked as a detective with the Greater Manchester Police, fraud inquiries involving boxes of materials would send detectives running “like rats out of a sinking ship.” Interviewing skills going back only two or three decades were largely based on trial by fire. You learned how to interview by mistakes and learning on the job, rather than formal training. Even today, organizational investment in strategic tactics and ethical considerations when interviewing subjects can be low. With the growing need to stay up to date with technological advancements, lack of training is a hindrance to completing an effective investigation. 

Davison led an interactive workshop at the 35th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference focused on arming attendees with strategies for managing difficult interview situations. From exploring the dynamics of fraud interviews to fostering an environment conducive to information gathering, Davison, now the managing director of Forensic Interview Solutions (FIS) Limited, provided insight into how fraud investigators can make the most of their time with potential fraud perpetrators. 

The Cycle of Confirmation 

Bringing assumptions into an investigation complicates theories that will be formed as more evidence is presented — or a lack of evidence prolongs bringing an investigation to a close. As Davison stressed, bringing assumptions into the interview will ultimately lead investigators astray time and again. 

This cycle of confirmation starts with an assumption of guilt; if you believe something is true, you’ll look for ways to affirm that idea. This confirmation bias stems from how an interviewer was raised, where they come from or their belief system. Bias ultimately leads to the wrong questions being asked and misreading nonverbal cues, which ultimately reinforces the initial assumption of guilt. The cycle of confirmation continues, leading to incorrect conclusions, false positives and dead ends. 

It’s vital to recognize these factors early on through training and, most importantly, set them aside when preparing. The interview is critical to recognizing behaviors and reactions from the subject that help determine what is really going on, and it cannot be influenced by an interviewer’s implicit bias. 

Psychology of an Interview 

Researching a subject’s background — their job history, education, any past offenses — isn’t enough. How a person interacts with the world around them, how they think or their belief systems will never be clearly stated. Your initial research gives you the outline about a person, but knowing the psychology behind action fills in necessary blanks to understand why they do what they do and allows you to see the world through their eyes. 

Effective interviewers prepare before meeting with a subject. However, the reality is that people facing questioning are likely to spend more time preparing and thinking about what’s coming than the interviewer. Investigators need to consider what kinds of human characteristics, such as social skills, self-esteem or justification, they may be prepared to combat. 

The psychology of an interview reveals itself in how the interview is conducted. Is the interviewer dressed formally? Is the setting a well-lit conference space or a dark room at the end of a long hallway? Planning means researching your subject, but it also means understanding how the setting and mood will help you reveal the truth you’re looking for. 

“You should be like a swan,” Davison said. Being emotionally charged flips the power structure away from the interviewer and to the subject. It’s important to operate soft-handed and smoothly, much like a swan, to maintain control of an interview. Getting results means developing trust early on. If you allow structure, bias or pride to take over the interview, you’ll push away the subject and make the investigation even more difficult. 

Hurdles and Strategies for Lying 

Davison pointed out that lying can be more challenging than telling the truth. Lies need to be maintained through a person’s imagination. When questioned, a lie needs supported by further lies to keep the story going. By asking something unrelated to the scenario that is being questioned, you’re able to find holes in a prepared statement that may not be true.  

Davison stressed the value in your first question being direct, clear and firm. Ask, “Are you responsible?” You now face two possible responses to your questions: yes, which means you’ve done your job, or no, and the subject gives their reasons why they’re innocent. The latter could be legitimate. If they are guilty, then you, as an effective interviewer, can prescribe how the conversation goes and begin poking holes in their recounting of the events down to the smallest detail. 

One idea that Davison added is how the interview provides opportunities. It’s not always the recounting of details that makes an effective interview and ultimately gives you the answers you’re looking for. It’s the tertiary information and avenues for exploration that an interview opens that makes your note taking, recording reviews and debriefs even more valuable. If you’re able to identify new avenues, you’ve effectively prolonged and expanding the investigation to either confirm or debunk what your subject has claimed as the truth. 

Strategic Use of Evidence 

Davison recalled an analogy of looking ahead at a golf course you’ll be playing. By understanding the layout and where the most difficult holes are, you can strategically plan your approach. In an interview, by organizing and using evidence strategically following the questions you ask, you can dig deeper into the motives behind what caused or affected the outcome of a crime being committed. 

“Could I produce that first receipt, not say anything about it, and ask them to explain it?” Davison said. It’s likely that nothing will happen; the subject can say they don’t know anything about it. But if you ask directly “did you take the money” or similar right out of the gate, even when using a specific interviewing technique like the P.E.A.C.E. Method, you arrive at the central point of the interview in a hurry. If they decline to answer, now you have a chance to present evidence and further the conversation.  

Frauds are the same. Cases are the same. People are the uncommon denominator, which is why adjusting your style based on the subject is vital. Flexibility is vital to planning for the unexpected. 

“How much time you have planning will have a direct correlation to what your results are,” Davison said. By spending more time looking at an individual’s characteristics or personality, you can anticipate the behaviors you may face. 

“As a football manager once said, ‘Easy game, complicated by people.’”