Types of Interviews

Hello Investigators! 

In our previous article on the Psychology of the Fraudster, we explored how fraudsters are cunning, smart and skilled at hiding their fraud activities. How then do investigators eventually get them to admit to the fraud? 

Well, there lies a detailed process and planning before interviewing these fraudsters. Believe it or not, a well-planned and thought out interview, coupled with the right techniques, can effectively lead to the fraudster admitting to his crime. In the next couple of weeks, we will walk you through how a typical forensic investigator would conduct the interview process!

Today, we look at the different types of interviews.

Types of Interviews

Forensic investigators usually conduct two main types of interviews: 

1. Information Seeking

In this type of interview, the main objective is to gather more information about the case. The investigator should start with forming theories of what might have happened (yes, like a hypothesis). This allows for crafting of the right questions to ask at the interview. Usually, the investigator would begin with the periphery of all candidates, before narrowing down to the witnesses who are more involved to obtain more in depth information. These should be non confrontational nor stressful, as the main objective is merely to collect information. Some other factors that should be taken into account: 

• This interview might not be efficient as people are not trained at giving answers. It is always good to ask from various perspectives to obtain a more complete picture. 

• At this stage, fraudsters usually give honest but incomplete answers. Asking more variety of questions will be useful. 

• Never, ever, make any assumptions about anything! Even if it seems obvious, ASK.

2. Admission Seeking 

This type of interview is more challenging, as it is not just about asking good and right questions, but also entails crafting solid arguments. When done skillfully, the suspect would admit to previously unknown information. The investigator must also consider the possibility that the suspect is lying, so it is important to take note of the suspect’s body language and emotions. (We will look more into this further into the series). Here are several approaches that investigators can adopt in an admission seeking interview: 

• The logical approach: Most classical approach that appears in most movies and dramas, where all evidence is laid out and the suspect begins to understand the futility of not confessing. This might lead to a small confession, which will eventually roll the ball for a larger confession. 

• Doing the right thing approach: Works wonders if the suspect has a history of doing right, as it reminds them of their normally righteous behaviour. 

• Silent treatment approach: Creating an uncomfortable situation which might lead to a confession, but should not be relied upon. It is also important to note not to suggest answers to the suspect, as this might affect the credibility of the interview results. 

• Rationalisation approach: This approach is a little tricky as it attempts to provide the suspect with a good reason to come clean. Crafting of the argument and rationalisation needs to be done carefully. 

• Bluffing approach: Most unstable approach as it usually doesn’t work, and there are many restrictions on the interviewer (no violence, etc).

Of course, there are other types of interviews being used in the industry. The two types that we shared today are two of the most common forms. Do let us know if you have personally encountered or heard of other types of interviews! 

Up next, we will be looking at the planning aspect that goes behind the interviews. Stay tuned!