Interviewing and interrogating techniques

By : André Lepage, FCPA, CPA●IFA, CFF, CFE

Managing Director

Lepage Marcil David Forensic Accountants inc.

When investigating suspicions and allegations of fraud or other financial irregularities, two types of evidence are gathered: documentary evidence and oral evidence. Documentary evidence is gathered from paper documents, computer records or data, and other written, printed, or electronic sources.

Oral evidence is gathered through interviews and interrogations. Interviewing or interrogating is an art. Unlike documentary evidence, which says what it says and does not change over time, oral evidence depends on the interviewer's efficacy, experience, skills and intuition.

The following paragraphs attempt to answer the following questions:

• What are an interview and an interrogation, and what are their purposes? 

• What skills are required of a Forensic Accountant during interviews or interrogations to gather information or oral evidence? 

• How to ask questions effectively to get the best results. 

• How to interpret the answers received.

What is an interview, an interrogation?

At the most basic level, an interview can be simply a conversation between two or more people (the interviewer and the interviewee), with the interviewer asking questions to elicit information from the interviewee. We do this all the time in our daily lives. But in an investigation, the interview takes a different tone. It becomes a conversation with a purpose. An interview aims to determine the truth by gathering all the facts involved. Interviews involve witnesses, victims, people who are usually willing to provide information. 

However, suspects who are usually unwilling to cooperate with the authorities, whether official company representatives, an employer, the police authorities or any other authorities responsible for enforcing the law, are subjected to an interrogation. We say “usually” because witnesses or victims can also be uncooperative out of fear or when wanting to escape a bad situation.

Types of Interviews and Interrogations

Television series are full of crime dramas where, after an interrogation, the suspect provides a confession at the show's end. These programs make it seem easy to interrogate a suspect and obtain a confession. Reality is quite different. It's not easy. First, police investigators have received extensive interrogation training, which is not necessarily true for all Forensic Accountants. While training regarding effective interviews and interrogations is available, Forensic Accountants do not have the opportunity to participate or practice in interrogations as often as their counterparts in the police service. Second, police officers have a level of authority that flows from their position in society that Forensic Accountants do not. They are officers of the peace.

It is worth noting that police officers investigating fraud conduct criminal investigations, not civil ones. They aim to solve crimes and collect enough evidence to convict fraudsters. As such, they must accumulate proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The suspects' interrogation should only occur once police officers have accumulated the most evidence possible as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the fraud or crime. Questioning suspects too quickly in the case of fraud is a mistake that can jeopardize the investigation and result in the disappearance or intentional alteration of important evidence. Accomplices could also adjust their versions of the facts to protect themselves.

Admissible statement or confession in criminal court

Before interrogating them, police officers must inform suspects of their fundamental rights to ensure that any statement or confession they may make is admissible in a court of law. They must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent and can request the immediate assistance of a lawyer (their own or a legal-aid lawyer). Suspects must also be informed that they have nothing to hope for from any promises, nor anything to fear from threats, but that everything they say can be used as evidence in a court of law. Confessions or admissions must be obtained freely and voluntarily and in accordance with the Canada Evidence Act.

It is worth noting that under the Canadian Criminal Code, representatives of a company who are investigating an employee, such as an Internal Auditor or an external consultant, such as a Forensic Accountant, are persons in authority when they obtain an out-of-court statement or confession and want it to be considered as admissible evidence in criminal courts. They will have to inform suspects about their rights, as police officers must do.

At a trial, any oral or written confession must be the subject of a voir dire for it to be admissible in evidence. What is a voir dire? Not to be confused with "Hearsay". It is a step in the judicial process that allows the judge to make a determination by questioning the witness of an event. It is a preliminary examination or, as it is customarily called, "a trial within a trial" in which a witness is questioned, before continuing to testify, about his or her capacity and interest in the case. Such an interrogation may also aim to establish whether the confession was made voluntarily by an accused to a police officer or a person in authority under the Canadian Criminal Code. 

It is, therefore, appropriate for investigators and interrogators to maintain a record throughout encounters with suspects. It is important to note, among other things:

• The location of the interview. 

• The names of the people present and the role of each person. 

• The exact time of the start and end of the interview. 

• The exact time the right to remain silent, call an attorney, and other customary warnings were read to the suspect. 

• The exact time of the health breaks, lunch, and resumption of the interrogation. 

• The exact time the suspect was served food and beverages, the nature of the food and beverages, etc.

During an interrogation, a witness should accompany the interviewer. The witness will take notes. Nevertheless, the interrogation should be conducted by one person only.

If the interrogation is videotaped, a single person to interview the suspect may be adequate and sufficient. Nevertheless, it is preferable to be no more than two people. More than two people could be perceived as intimidating by the suspect.

Statement or confession obtained in the course of an internal investigation to be used in a civil, administrative or labour law proceeding

If the statement or confession is to be used in the context of an internal investigation, civil, administrative or labour law proceedings, it is not necessary to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent, to call a lawyer, as well as to warn them that they have nothing to expect from promises, nor anything to fear from threats, but that everything they say can be used as evidence in court.

How to take a confession or out-of-court statement from a suspect

Videotaped confession or out-of-court statement

A confession or out-of-court statement can be videotaped. To this end, the interviewer will note in his report the technical information about the devices or equipment used for the purposes of the voir dire procedure.

Written out-of-court statement – in the form of questions and answers

The interrogator may take the suspect's statements in a written statement through questions and answers. At the beginning of the interrogation, the interrogator will ask certain questions to identify the person, his or her role within an organization, hierarchical level, immediate supervisor, etc. They will start by asking general questions and then ask more specific questions. At the very end of the interrogation, it is customary and preferable to ask suspects if they would like to add anything else to their statement.

Also, it's best not to leave empty lines or spaces between questions and answers.

The suspect must sign each statement page and initial all deletions or corrections. Professional investigators usually have statement forms to be used when taking statements from suspects.

Written out-of-court statement – in narrative form

Another form of out-of-court statement is to let the suspect write in his or her own words, a text in which he or she tells his or her version of the facts.

Whether it is a witness or a victim who gives an out-of-court statement, if the investigator or interviewer has reason to believe that the witness or victim, out of interest or fear, may change his or her story when called to testify in court, the statement should be sworn or in the form of a statutory declaration. Such a statement serves to control the testimony given in court. Canadian law allows one to digitally record an interview or interrogation without notice during an interview or interrogation. However, this practice is prohibited in several states in the United States.

Time and place of an interview or interrogation

The witness interview should be arranged as soon as possible after the events under investigation, as the memory of specific details that may be crucial to the investigation diminishes over time. The investigator must ensure that documentary or electronic evidence is kept secure before communicating with witnesses. He or she must ensure, as much as possible, that witnesses will not communicate with and influence each other. As for interrogating a suspect, this is the last step in the investigation. The investigator must have the best possible knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the irregularities committed, the stratagem used, and the statements of witnesses previously collected before proceeding with the interrogation.

If the investigator is a police officer, he or she will use the interrogation rooms of his or her police headquarters. If the investigator is a Forensic Accountant with the knowledge and experience to conduct an interview or interrogation, he or she will choose a neutral location, such as a conference room. Such a location allows the interviewer to take control of the situation and minimizes the risk of interruptions. Since the interviewer must always seek to control the interview, location is important.

If the interview takes place in the interviewee's office, he/she is in an advantageous position. The interviewee may end the interview before the interviewer is ready. There should be no interruptions or distractions during an interview or interrogation, which can disrupt the flow of questions. A phone call or knock on the door at a critical moment in the interview or interrogation could result in the interviewee running away and never coming back.

It is preferable to use a room of about 3.5m X 3.5m, sufficiently lit, without a telephone or with the telephone unplugged. The furnishings must be kept to a minimum, a table and three chairs. It is best to place the suspect in a position where they cannot benefit from any advantage. The investigator in charge and his or her colleague should always choose advantageous positions in relation to the subject they are going to interview or interrogate. The interviewee should be observed from the front and the side.

Preparing for an Interview

As with all aspects of an investigation, preparation is critical to success. There is usually only one opportunity to interview a person, so it is important that the desired goal is achieved and that the time is used effectively.

Preparation for an interview or interrogation consists of three parts: preparing an outline of the topics to be covered, organizing the documents to be discussed, and gathering basic knowledge about the interviewee.

a.) Prepare a plan 

An interview can be used to corroborate the evidence or gather more evidence (fact-finding). Regardless of the type of interview, it is necessary to have a detailed outline or script listing the areas to be covered and the questions to be asked. The level of detail will depend on the interviewer's experience. There is no need to adhere to the plan too strictly since an interrogation is a dynamic process that must be allowed to flow with the least interruptions possible.

If you stick too closely to a script, the flow of the discussion will be slowed down. The plan is important to ensure that all areas the investigator wants to ask questions about have been covered. But first and foremost, you have to know how to listen.

b.) Organizing the documents

Forensic accounting or economic crime investigations tend to have a large volume of documents to review. One of the purposes of an interview is often to obtain comments or explanations regarding documents such as invoices, contracts, cashed checks, etc. Interview preparation means that all relevant documents are well organized and easily accessible. Presenting documents will intensify the discussion or minimize differences in understanding and even resolve some of them immediately. Well-organized documents keep your interview or interrogation running smoothly.

c.) Gathering knowledge

Preparation also involves knowing as much as possible about the person to be interviewed. Basic information can be gathered by talking to colleagues, reviewing personnel records, and even performing a full public records check. General information includes employment history, financial status, and personal life, such as marital status and number of dependents. The extent of basic information to be collected depends on the reason for which the person is being interviewed. If the person is a suspect involved in inappropriate activities, knowing the pressures he or she is under can contribute to developing a good relationship with the investigator or interviewer and result in better cooperation.

Establish a rapport

It is essential to put the interviewee at ease, as more information will be gathered if they are comfortable and willing to cooperate. Interviewees are understandably anxious and stressed, even if not apparent from the outside. Don't assume that someone who appears abnormally stressed during an interview or interrogation is guilty of something. It may simply be related to fear of authority or the inability to provide helpful information in response to the questions asked. Anything the interviewer can do to put the interviewee at ease will be helpful, as it will ease the flow of communication and provide more useful information.

Start the interview by building a rapport with the interviewee. Break the ice by finding common ground by briefly discussing neutral topics, such as the weather, recent sporting events, etc. Interviewers have all to gain by presenting themselves in a friendly and engaging way. Before starting the formal part of the interview, the interviewee should be provided with background information to reassure them. This information includes the purpose of the interview, the authority under which the interview is conducted, and why this person was selected for an interview.

The interview should begin with simple, fact-based questions such as how long the person has been employed by her current employer, where she was before her current job, job description, and responsibilities. While the interviewer may have gathered these facts from others, confirming this information helps build a rapport with the interviewee and facilitates the conversation.

Observe – Pay attention

An interrogation, like an interview, is conducted not only with the ears but also with the eyes. During the rapport-building phase, the interviewer does not simply listen to what is being said, they observe the interviewee while he/she is relatively comfortable. Observations include posture, facial expressions, hand gestures, tone, level of animation, and more. As the interview continues, the interviewee can sometimes become uncomfortable due to the type of questions and the topic discussed. By observing changes in the interviewee's behaviour, the interviewer can assess the honesty of the answers given.

How to conclude

An interview should always end on a positive note. End the interview or interrogation by allowing the interviewee to say everything he or she might not have said before but wish to say. A good final question that might elicit an interesting answer is, "Sometimes people expect to be asked certain questions. What questions did you expect that were not asked?" In addition, the interviewee should be encouraged to contact the interviewer if additional information comes to mind.

It is important to remind the interviewee that the interview or interrogation may resume or be continued later should additional questions arise. Information may emerge as the investigation continues, requiring additional questions or even a new interview. The interviewee should be informed of this possibility.

Always thank the interviewee for their time and cooperation and remind them of their obligation of confidentiality. It is important to remember that even if we obtain the interviewee's cooperation, a person may refuse to be interviewed by a Forensic Accountant in the context of an investigation.

Note-taking

The memory of what is said during interviews or interrogations gradually decreases, and it will not be possible to remember the exact answers to all questions. Therefore, it is preferable that the interviewer be accompanied by a member of his or her team whose role will be to take detailed notes of the interview or interrogation. Although the notes taken belong to the interview or interrogation team, the interviewee may request a copy of the interviewer's notes. It is up to the latter to decide whether to provide them.

Notes should reflect the answers given as accurately and completely as possible and should not be tainted by the note-taker’s biases. A note-taker has the added benefit of providing a second ear to ensure the interviewer's understanding is accurate. The downside is that a second person can change a conversation's dynamic, increasing the intimidation the interviewee may feel from facing two persons instead of one.

Recording the interview or interrogation on audiotape is useful for accurately referencing the questions asked and the answers obtained after the fact. This allows for better listening and conversation flow, not to mention that it provides a reliable reference tool when needed. In such a case, the interviewer may conduct the interview or interrogation alone since he or she does not have to take notes.

As mentioned above, Canadian law allows a conversation to be recorded without the person's knowledge. However, asking permission to record the interview before starting it is preferable. This reassures the interviewee and gives him or her confidence, and it is rare that such a request is denied.

Although notes or recordings taken during an interview belong to the interviewer, recent case law specifies that such notes or audio recordings must be part of the report of the Forensic Accountant who testifies in court in this regard, whether in the body of his report or in an appendix. It is important not to confuse this duty with conversations with clients or their employees and representatives, which are generally protected by solicitor-client privilege. However, Forensic Accountants who act as joint experts before the courts must account for all conversations held with either party in their report. In such cases, all parties must be copied on all correspondence of the joint expert.

Formulation of questions

By nature, an interview is a conversation between two or more people in which the interviewer asks questions to elicit information from the interviewee. An interview aims to gather as much information as possible and correctly assess the information's veracity.

A successful interview is one in which the interviewee speaks most often, perhaps 85% of the time or more. The amount of information collected will depend on how effectively the interviewer asks questions.

The most effective questions are open-ended questions that start with who, when, what, how, why, and where, which let the interviewee express themselves freely. These questions generate more information and prevent the courts from attributing less credibility to the interview or considering it inadmissible as evidence because it is too directed.

Closed-ended questions answered with "yes" or "no" are useful for confirming specific information but should be limited in number so as not to decrease the credibility of the interview. In addition, a question such as "Do you know anything about...?" can lead to a simple "yes" or "no," which may not be helpful. A more effective question would be "What do you know about...?".

Here are some tips for formulating questions:

• Complex questions containing too many details or several sub-questions should be avoided. 

• Echoing the interviewee's comments can be helpful. Mirroring involves repeating the last words that were spoken.

• When confronted with technical accounting problems during an interview with a sophisticated person, the interviewer should try to limit the use of jargon as much as possible. When certain jargon is required, the terms should be defined to avoid misunderstandings, as both parties may interpret the jargon differently.

• Do not interrupt a response. 

• Avoid starting with a statement eliciting negative expectations such as: "I realize it's stressful for you..." or "I understand that you may not know much about this..." or "I know you may have forgotten a lot since then, but...". " 

• Start with altruistic statements to secure cooperation, such as "I need help...", "It would help me review a few points..." or "I need your help to clarify a few things.... " 

• Silence is a very powerful tool. We tend to be uncomfortable with downtime and want to fill it in. However, the interviewee must be allowed to fill the space.

Once the right question has been asked, the interviewer should carefully listen and observe the answer received.

Listen to the answers

It is necessary to assess whether the answers are true during an interview. Listening carefully is hard work. You need concentration: you must listen to the words spoken, the choice of words used and the way they are said. An investigative Forensic Accountant will find that listening to what the person says and how he or she says it is key to assessing honesty. When trying to gather information, the following points should be taken into account:

• The interviewer will know the answer to certain questions. These questions should be asked in such a way as to make the interviewee believe that the answer is not known to determine the extent to which the answers provided are true. 

• How does the person answer the questions asked? When emotions are expressed, and details are provided, the story is more likely to be true. A person who lies will provide minimal detail to reduce the risk of forgetting a lie they have told.

• Does the interviewee’s mood change during the questions? It is often possible to identify increased stress levels associated with discomfort in answering certain questions when the person is lying. 

• Are the answers clear, or are they too complex? Some issues that the investigative Forensic Accountant is required to review may be of a complex technical nature and difficult to understand, such as derivatives transactions. Does the interviewee explain the problems completely and clearly or is there an attempt to minimize the importance of the question to the interviewer by suggesting that he/she could not understand such complex concepts? Someone who has nothing to hide will explain things so that the interviewer can understand.

• Pay attention to delay tactics the interviewee uses, such as taking an inordinate amount of time to answer certain questions. A truthful answer does not take the time to formulate. Excessive time to answer questions may suggest that the interviewee seeks time to formulate a lie. Requests for clarification and repetition of questions could indicate the need to formulate a lie. 

• Consider the choice of language used. Excessive use of twisted words can indicate that the interviewee is not honest. Be aware of words and phrases such as... To the best of my knowledge or recollection... Believe me... or... Truly...

Observe body language

A lot has been written about body language as a tool to determine if someone is telling the truth.  The theory behind body language is that it is unconscious and, therefore, more revealing. Words can send one message, but body language can send another. It takes a great deal of skill and experience to read a person's body language accurately, but at the most basic level, it is necessary to observe the changes in body language throughout the interview or interrogation. The first step should be to observe body language when discussing non-threatening topics, such as their background or job descriptions, etc., at the beginning of the interview or interrogation and during the rapport-building phase. The interviewer will compare with the body language presented when more delicate questions are asked. Here are some examples of body language related to lying:

• Crossed arms or legs may indicate discomfort related to questions. 

• People more often touch their faces, especially their noses, when they lie. 

• Inability to maintain eye contact. People tend to look away when they lie, or they may glance at the interviewer and quickly look away. 

• The voice may change tone when people are nervous. 

• The face may become red, and the mouth may become dry. 

• Breathing becomes faster.

While none of these examples prove someone is lying, they can tell us something about the interviewee's state of mind.