INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES

Transcription

1 Are internal investigations in multinational companies systematic? The word investigation comes from the Latin word vestigium, meaning trace or footprint. Investigation itself is the search for the trace or footprint and, if done professionally, demands commitment to inquire in detail, observe carefully, and examine systematically. This session will discuss the nature of investigation and highlight how legal, moral, and regulatory requirements now define acceptable conduct of investigative practitioners in any multinational company. You will learn how to: Appreciate the key aspects of investigation. Employ a model of investigative decision making. Determine if your company investigates systematically and to the same standards. JONATHAN DAVISON Director Forensic Interview Solutions (FIS) Limited New Zealand Jonathan Davison had more than 12 years investigation and interview experience as a detective with Greater Manchester Police. In his last role with Greater Manchester Police, he was an Advanced Specialist Tier 3 Interviewer and a qualified trainer in the field of investigative interviewing. Davison founded Forensic Interview Solutions (FIS), a collaborative team of international experts specializing in investigative interviewing and delivering bespoke training, consultancy, and solutions to public and private sector organizations worldwide. He specializes in the forensic application of the "science of interviewing" in the workplace to improve investigative decision making, efficacy, and quality. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Certified Fraud Examiner, CFE, ACFE, and the ACFE Logo are trademarks owned by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. The contents of this paper may not be transmitted, re-published, modified, reproduced, distributed, copied, or sold without the prior consent of the author. 2014

2 Internal Investigations in Multinational Companies Are internal investigations in multinational companies systematic? The word investigation comes from the Latin word vestigium, meaning trace or footprint. Investigation itself is the search for the trace or footprint and, if done professionally, demands commitment to inquire in detail, to observe carefully, and to examine systematically. What is common to every context of investigation is the commitment of human resources practitioner, supervisor, and manager and, increasingly, the application of technology, in the acquisition, management, and use of information to protect the well-being of individuals, companies, and the business community as a whole by solving or resolving a problematic occurrence or set of circumstances. Common to all such occurrences and circumstances is a case an instance of harm that has happened, is happening, or has the potential to happen. During the presentation, we will discuss how these cases are being investigated and ask the question: Does your company investigate systematically and to the same standards? Systematic Investigations This is based on a fundamental principle: The interviewer should also be the investigator. And he must have access to all the available information. This allows the interviewer to: Conduct a thorough and ethical investigation. Conduct a thorough and ethical interview. Be more able to deal with evasion

3 Be more able to recognize deception. Be more able to challenge deception. Present a strong case to the judiciary. The Expectations of the Judiciary and the Organization in Relation to Investigations and Interviews The Organization The organization expects our investigations and interviews to be: Robust Persistent strength, durability, assertiveness NOT weak, NOT bullying Challenging Inquiring, calling into account, balanced Effective Of some effect, purpose, progress change, professional The Judiciary or Judiciary Body The judiciary expects our interviews and investigations to be: Lawful Complying with the laws of the state Ethical Morally correct and fair As investigators and interviewers we are expected to obtain information. We get this from a variety of sources: Interviews Intelligence Surveillance Forensics Witnesses Information becomes evidence when we can present it to the judiciary under the rules of law governing the subject

4 How does an investigator deal with the mass of information obtained from the investigation? There are two extremes of behavior: Top down I know the situation. I know the problem. I know the person. I know the answer. The blindness of experience Total reliance on the rules of thumb Unreasoned decision making Bottom up Overwhelmed by the mass of detail Confused, cannot see what is obvious Wood for the trees Chasing your tail So, the professional investigator s approach is: TOP DOWN Benefit of experience MIDDLE OUT The best way BOTTOM UP Attention to detail The Model for Investigation This model is taught to detectives investigating serious offences. It is a model based on normal thought processes. All investigators will recognize most of the model and do most of it naturally. A.C.C.E.S.S. is a systematic method of dealing with information. It has been developed by forensic psychologists and used by the best legal teams. We refer to the model as the mnemonic A.C.C.E.S.S

5 A ASSESS The issue observe take notes The situation What has happened? Where do we go from here? Information available Main points facts or opinions Produce a written wants analysis. What/why wanted/where from C COLLECT From our wants analysis, we start to collect: New information Forensic evidence Witnesses Intelligence Surveillance Beware! To collect information, we have to communicate. Communication is a two-way process; to obtain information, we always give some away. Don t give too much. After we have collected the information, what do we do with it? C COLLATE We collate the information: We review it. Put it in order logical sequence Keep records of activity, e.g., who has spoken to informants, witnesses, your rational/methodologies Keep logs surveillance, house to house, inquires made

6 E EVALUATE Evaluate the information: Check the internal validity. Does the information make sense within itself? An example of internal validity: The man entered the room, bent over and slid the suitcase under the bed. He left and later returned and pulled the suitcase from under the chair and opened it. This situation is wrong within itself; one detail contradicts an earlier one. Check the external validity. An example of external validity: The man unlocked the door and entered the room. He slid the suitcase under the bed and left, locking the door again. This makes sense within itself but, if we know there is no lock on the door, then it cannot have happened like this. The facts in the statement do not match the external facts, e.g., reality. Likewise: If the information does not match other facts external to it, external validity is in doubt. So we have validity external and internal and reliability: Is it honest and lawful? What is the source of the information? What is the originator s agenda and motive? The law can it be used? Does it comply with the rules of court?

7 S SCRUTINIZE To examine the information from a different viewpoint than our own. As a service, the organization develops a case theory. It seeks to confirm and accept the theory. It could be wrong and undermine the case. The defense use the scientific theory. They seek evidence to disprove their theory. If they cannot disprove the theory, it is probably correct and adds strength to their case. We should apply the scientific theory: Look for the holes in our theory. Try to disprove it. Observe from the defense viewpoint. S SUMMARIZE Summarize the case: A chronological summary of all the evidence against the person The prosecution evidence The details of the case How we can prove the case Acceptable evidence that can be presented to the judiciary Before the submission of the case file, check the evidence out, find any holes in the case now is the time to find it

8 A.C.C.E.S.S. = ASSESS SUMMARIZE COLLECT SCRUTINIZE COLLATE EVALUATE