Wk4 Discussion (Interviewing) - Post 1

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 1/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Anatomical Physical Responses

Anatomical physical responses are those involuntary reactions by the body to fright such as

increased heart rate, shallow or labored breathing, or excessive perspiration. These

reactions are typical of dishonest people accused of wrongdoing.

Illustrators

Illustrators are the motions made, primarily with the hands, to demonstrate points when

talking. During nonthreatening questions, the illustrators will be used at one rate. During

threatening questions, the use of illustrators might increase or decrease.

Hands over the Mouth

Frequently, dishonest people will cover the mouth with the hand or fingers during

deception. This reaction goes back to childhood, when many children cover their mouths

when telling a lie. It is done, subconsciously, to conceal the statement.

Manipulators

Manipulators are motions such as picking lint from clothing, playing with objects (such as

pencils), or holding one’s hands while talking. Manipulators are displacement activities,

done to reduce nervousness.

Fleeing Positions

During the interview, dishonest people often will posture themselves in a “fleeing position.”

While the head and trunk might be facing you, the feet and lower portion of the body might

be pointing toward the door in an unconscious effort to flee from you.

Crossing the Arms

Crossing one’s arms over the middle zones of the body is a classic defensive reaction to

difficult or uncomfortable questions. A variation is crossing the feet under the chair and

locking them. These crossing motions occur mostly when a person is being deceptive.

Reaction to Evidence

400

401

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 2/21

While trying to be outwardly unconcerned, the guilty person will have a keen interest in

implicating evidence. The dishonest person often will look at documents presented by you,

attempt to be casual about observing them, and then shove them away, as though wanting

nothing to do with the evidence.

Fake Smiles

Genuine smiles usually involve the whole mouth; false ones are confined to the upper half.

People involved in deception tend to smirk rather than to smile.

Typical Attitudes Displayed by Respondents

Truthful Untruthful

Calm Impatient

Relaxed Tense

Cooperative Defensive

Concerned Outwardly unconcerned

Sincere Overly friendly, polite

Inflexible Defeated

Cordial Surly

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 3/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Methodology

Assessment questions should proceed logically from least to most sensitive. In most

examples, the basis for the question should be explained before the question is asked. The

following questions illustrate the pattern that an interviewer might take in questioning a

witness when he has some reason to believe that the respondent, a company employee, has

knowledge of a suspected fraud.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “The company is particularly concerned about fraud and abuse. There are laws

in effect that will cost the company millions if abuses go on and we don’t try to find them.

Do you know some of the laws I am talking about?”

EXPLANATION

Most individuals will not know about the laws concerning corporate sentencing guidelines,

and will therefore answer “no.” The purpose of this question is to get the respondent to

understand the serious nature of fraud and abuse.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Congress passed a law that can levy fines of more than $200 million against

companies that don’t try to clean their own houses. And $200 million is a lot of money, so

you can understand why the company’s concerned, can’t you?”

EXPLANATION

The majority of people will say “yes” to this question. In the event of a “no” answer, you

should explain the issue fully and thereafter attempt to get the respondent’s agreement. If

agreement is not forthcoming, you should assess why not.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Of course, they are not talking about a loyal employee who gets in a bind.

They’re talking more about senior management. Have you ever read in the newspapers

about what kind of people engage in company misdeeds?”

EXPLANATION

401

402

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 4/21

Most people read the newspapers and are at least generally familiar with the problem of

fraud and abuse. Agreement by the respondent is expected to this question.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Most of them aren’t criminals at all. A lot of times, they’re just trying to save

their jobs, or just trying to get by because the company is so cheap that they won’t pay

people what they are worth. Do you know what I mean?”

EXPLANATION

Although the honest person and the dishonest person will both probably answer “yes” to

this question, the honest individual is less likely to accept the premise that these people are

not wrongdoers. Many honest people will reply to the effect that, while they might

understand the motivation, that does not justify stealing.

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 5/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Why do you think someone around here might be justified in making a secret

arrangement with one of the company’s vendors?”

EXPLANATION

Because fraud perpetrators frequently justify their acts, the dishonest individual is more

likely than the honest person to attempt a justification, such as, “Everyone does it” or “The

company should treat people better if they don’t want things like this to happen.”

The honest person, however, is much less likely to offer a justification.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “How do you think we should deal with someone who got in a bind and did

something wrong in the eyes of the company?”

EXPLANATION

Similar to other questions in this series, the honest person tends to want to punish the

criminal, while the culpable individual will typically avoid suggesting a strong punishment,

for example: “How should I know? It’s not up to me” or, “If he was a good employee, maybe

we should give him another chance.”

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Do you think someone in your department might have done something wrong

because they thought they were justified?”

EXPLANATION

Most people—honest or dishonest—will answer “no” to this question. However, when you

get a “yes,” the culpable person is more likely to do so without elaborating. The honest

person, if answering “yes,” will most likely provide details.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Have you ever felt yourself—even though you didn’t go through with it—

justified in taking advantage of your position?”

EXPLANATION

402

403

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 6/21

Again, most people, both honest and dishonest, will answer this question “no.” However, the

dishonest person is more likely to acknowledge having at least “thought” of doing it.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Who in your department do you feel would think they were justified in doing

something against the company?”

EXPLANATION

The dishonest person will not likely furnish an answer to this question, frequently saying

something to the effect that anyone could have a justification. Dishonest individuals will

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 7/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

be reluctant to provide any answer that narrows the list of possible suspects. The honest

individual, however, is more likely to name names—albeit reluctantly.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Do you believe that most people will tell their manager if they believed a

colleague was doing something wrong, like committing fraud against the company?”

EXPLANATION

The honest person is much more likely to report a misdeed herself, and is more likely to

respond “yes” to this question. The dishonest person, on the other hand, is more likely to say

“no.” When pressed for an explanation, this person might qualify the “no” by adding that

the information would be ignored or that it would not be believed.

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “Is there any reason why someone who works with you would say they

thought you might feel justified in doing something wrong?”

EXPLANATION

This is a hypothetical question designed to place the thought in the mind of a wrongdoer

that someone has named him as a suspect. The honest person typically will say “no.” The

dishonest person is more likely to try to explain by saying something like, “I know there are

people around here that don’t like me.”

EXAMPLE

Interviewer: “What would concern you most if you did something wrong and it was found

out?”

EXPLANATION

The dishonest person is likely to accept the proposition of having done something wrong,

and to focus on possible repercussions, for example: “I wouldn’t want to go to jail.” The

honest person, on the other hand, is more likely to reject the notion of having committed a

crime. If the honest person does address her concerns about being caught in an illegal act,

her concerns will usually be along the lines of disappointing friends or family; the dishonest

person is more likely to discuss punitive measures.

403

404

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 8/21

Admission-Seeking Questions

Admission-seeking interviews are reserved specifically for individuals whose culpability is

reasonably certain. They are posed in a precise order designed to (1) clear an innocent

person or (2) encourage the culpable person to confess. Admission-seeking questions have

at least three purposes. The first is to distinguish the innocent from the culpable. A culpable

individual frequently will confess during the admission-seeking phase of an interview,

while an innocent person will not do so unless threats or coercion are used. In some

instances, the only way to differentiate the culpable from the innocent is to seek an

admission of guilt.

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 9/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

The second purpose is to obtain a valid confession. Confessions, under the law, must be

voluntarily given and obtained. The importance of a valid and binding confession to

wrongdoing cannot be overstated.

The third purpose of the admission-seeking phase is to obtain from the confessor a written

statement acknowledging the facts. Although oral confessions are legally as binding as

written ones, written statements have greater credibility. They also discourage a person

from later attempting to recant.

Presence of Outsiders

It is usually not necessary to inform the subject that he is entitled to have an attorney or

other representative present. However, there are cases in which an employee may have the

right to have a union representative or even a coworker present. Check with your lawyer if

in doubt. Of course, even if the person has a right to have an attorney or other

representative present, you should make it clear that the representative will be an observer

only; representatives (even attorneys) should not ask questions or object.

Other than the subject and two investigators, no other observers should be permitted in the

admission-seeking interview if at all possible. Having others in the room may present legal

problems in “broadcasting” the allegation to a third party. Also, it is very difficult to obtain a

confession with witnesses present. You should therefore consider whether the case can be

proven without the admission-seeking interview.

Miranda Warnings

As a general rule, private employers conducting an internal investigation are not required

to give Miranda warnings; however, there are exceptions to the rule. See your attorney for

details.

Theme Development

People will confess to wrongdoing when they perceive that the benefits of confession

outweigh the penalties. A good interviewer, through the application of sophisticated

techniques, will be able to convince the respondent that the confession is in his best

interest.

404

405

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 10/21

You must offer a morally acceptable reason for the confessor’s behavior. You should not

imply that the subject is a bad person, and you should never express disgust, outrage, or

moral condemnation about the confessor’s actions. Culpable people will almost never

confess under these conditions. You must be firm, but you must also project compassion,

understanding, and sympathy in order to obtain a confession. The goal is to maximize

sympathy and minimize the perception of moral wrongdoing.

It is important that you convey absolute confidence in the premise of the admission you

seek from the subject—even if you are not fully convinced. People generally will not confess

if they believe the accuser has doubts about their guilt. You should make the accusation in

the form of a statement of fact; the subject’s guilt should already be assumed in the form of

the question. Instead of asking, “Did you do it?”, ask, “Why did you do it?”

Remember that the first purpose of an admission-seeking question is to distinguish an

innocent person from a culpable one. An innocent person generally will not accept the

premise that he is responsible. The guilty person, on the other hand, knows he has

committed the act, and is not shocked by the premise. The objection, if the person offers

one, is more likely to focus on excuses for the conduct rather than outright denial of the

conduct.

Obviously, there is a danger during this phase that you will accuse an innocent person of a

crime. This is regrettable, but there are some circumstances in which the only way to

distinguish the innocent from the culpable is through the use of accusations. You

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 11/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

must be careful, however, about opening up yourself or your company to legal liability for

the accusation. In general, there is nothing illegal about accusing an innocent person of

misdeeds as long as

• The accuser has reasonable suspicion or predication to believe that the accused has

committed an offense

• The accusation is made under conditions of privacy

• The accuser does not take any action likely to make an innocent person confess

• The accusation is conducted under reasonable conditions

Steps in the Admission-Seeking Interview

Direct Accusation

During the admission-seeking interview, you must at some point make a direct accusation of

the subject. The accusation should not be made in the form of a question, but rather as a

statement. Emotive words such as steal, fraud, and crime should be avoided during the

accusatory process. The accusation should be phrased as though the accused’s guilt has

already been established. Instead of saying, “We have reason to believe that you…”, you

should say, “Our investigation has clearly established that you….” The first statement leaves

some ambiguity as to whether the accused really committed the act; the second

affirmatively states that the accused committed the act.

Observe Reaction

When accused of wrongdoing, the typical culpable person will react with silence. If the

accused does deny culpability, those denials usually will be weak. In some cases, the accused

will almost mumble the denial. It is common for the culpable individual to avoid outright

denials. Instead, that person will give reasons why he could not have committed the act in

question. The innocent person sometimes will react with genuine shock at being accused. It

is not at all unusual for an innocent person, wrongfully accused, to react with anger. As

opposed to the culpable person, the innocent person will usually strongly deny carrying out

the act or acts in question.

Repeat Accusation

405

406

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 12/21

If the accused does not strenuously object after the accusation is made, it should be

repeated with the same degree of conviction and strength.

Interrupt Denials

Both the truthful and untruthful person normally will object to the accusation and attempt

to deny it. A culpable person is more likely than an innocent one to stop short of an outright

denial (“I didn’t do it”), and more apt to furnish you with explanations of why he is not, and

could not be, the responsible party. In instances in which you are convinced of the

individual’s guilt, it is very important that the denial be interrupted; an innocent person is

unlikely to allow you to prevail in stopping the denial, and it becomes extremely difficult for

the accused to change a denial once it has been uttered. If the subject denies the accusation

and later admits it, he is admitting to lying. This is very hard to do. Therefore, your job is to

prevent an outright denial, thereby making it easier for the subject to eventually confess to

the act.

Both the innocent and the guilty person will make an outright denial if forced to do so.

Accordingly, you should not solicit a denial at this stage of the admission-seeking interview.

Instead of asking, “Did you do this?”, which gives the subject a chance to say “no,” you

should phrase the accusation as though the subject’s wrongdoing has already been

determined: “Why did you do this?”

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 13/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Delays

One of the most effective techniques for stopping or interrupting a denial is through the use

of a delaying tactic. You should not argue with the accused, but rather attempt to delay the

outright denial—“I hear what you are saying, but let me finish first. Then you can talk.” The

innocent person usually will not allow you to continue to develop the theme.

Interruptions

Occasionally, it might be necessary to repeatedly interrupt the accused’s attempted denial.

Because this stage is crucial, you should be prepared to increase the tone of the

interruptions to the point at which the accused is prepared to say: “If you keep interrupting,

I am going to have to terminate this conversation.” The culpable individual will find this

threatening, since he wants to know the extent of incriminating evidence in your

possession.

Reasoning

If the above techniques are unsuccessful, you might attempt to reason with the accused and

employ some of the tactics normally used for diffusing alibis (see subsequent discussion). In

this technique, the accused is presented with evidence implicating him in the crime. You

should not disclose all the facts of the case, but rather small portions here and there.

Establish Rationalization

Assuming the subject does not confess to the misconduct when faced with direct

accusations, you should proceed to establishing a morally acceptable rationalization that

will allow the accused to square the misdeed with her conscience. It is not necessary that

the rationalization be related to the underlying causes of the misconduct. It is acceptable for

the accused to explain away the moral consequences of the action by seizing on any

plausible explanation other than being a “bad person.”

If the accused does not seem to relate to one theme, go on to another, and another, until one

seems to fit. Thereafter, that theme should be developed fully. Note that the rationalization

explains away the moral—though not the legal—consequences of the misdeed. Be

cautioned: Do not make any statements leading the accused to believe that he will be

excused from legal liability as a result of his cooperation.

406

407

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 14/21

Rather than being confrontational, constantly seek agreement from the accused. The goal is

to remain in control of the interview while still appearing compassionate and

understanding. Again, no matter what conduct the accused has supposedly committed, do

not express shock, outrage, or condemnation.

Unfair Treatment

Probably the most common explanation for criminal activity in general, and occupational

fraud in particular, is in the accused’s attempt to achieve equity. As discussed in Chapter 1,

studies have shown that counterproductive employee behavior—including stealing—is

often motivated by job dissatisfaction. Employees, and others, feel that “striking back” is

important to their self-esteem. The sensitive interviewer can capitalize on these feelings by

suggesting to the accused that he is a victim: “If you had been fairly treated, this wouldn’t

have happened, would it?”

Inadequate Recognition

Some employees might feel that their efforts have gone completely without notice by the

company. As with similar themes, you should be empathetic: “It looks to me that you have

given a lot more to this company than they have recognized. Isn’t that right?”

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 15/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Financial Problems

Occupational criminals, especially executives and upper management, frequently engage in

fraud to conceal a problematic financial condition—either personal or business. You can

exploit this theme by expressing sympathy and understanding for the subject’s financial

problems, as well as understanding for the misconduct: “I know a lot of your investments

have taken a beating. I don’t know how you managed to keep everything afloat as well as

you did. You just did this to stay alive financially, didn’t you?”

Aberration of Conduct

Many fraudsters believe that their conduct constitutes an aberration in their lives—that it is

not representative of their true character. You might establish this theme by agreeing that

the misconduct was an aberration: “I know this is totally out of character for you. I know

that this would never have happened if something weren’t going on in your life. Isn’t that

right?”

Family Problems

Some people commit fraud because of family problems—financial woes caused by divorce,

an unfaithful spouse, or demanding children. Men especially—who have been socially

conditioned to tie their masculinity to earning power—might hold the notion that wealth

connotes family respect. For their part, women have been found to commit white-collar

crime in the name of their responsibility to the needs of their husbands and children. The

skillful interviewer can convert this motive to his advantage: “I know you have had some

family problems. I know your divorce has been difficult for you. And I know how it is when

these problems occur. You would have never done this if it hadn’t been for the family

problems, isn’t that right?”

Accuser’s Actions

You should not disclose the accuser’s identity if it is not already known. But in cases where

the accuser’s identity is known to the accused, it can be helpful to blame the accuser for the

problem. Or, the problem can be blamed on the company: “I really blame a large part of this

on the company. If some of the things that went on around this company were known, it

would make what you’ve done seem pretty small in comparison, wouldn’t it?”

407

408

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 16/21

Stress, Drugs, Alcohol

Employees sometimes will turn to drugs or alcohol to reduce stress. In some instances, the

stress itself will lead to aberrant behavior in a few individuals. A rationalization established

by you could play on the subject’s substance abuse: “You’re one of the most respected people

in this company. I know you have been under tremendous pressure to succeed. Too much

pressure, really. That’s behind what happened, isn’t it?”

Revenge

Similar to other themes, revenge can be effectively developed as a justification for the

subject’s misconduct. In this technique, you attempt to blame the offense on the accused’s

feeling that he needed to “get back” at someone or something: “Linda, what has happened is

out of character for you. I think you were trying to get back at your supervisor because he

passed you over for a raise. I would probably feel the same. That’s what happened, isn’t it?”

Depersonalizing the Victim

In cases involving employee theft, an effective technique is to depersonalize the victim. The

accused is better able to cope with the moral dilemma of her actions if the victim is a

faceless corporation or agency: “It’s not like what you’ve done has really hurt one person.

Maybe you thought of it this way: ‘At most, I’ve cost each shareholder a few cents.’ Is that

the way it was?”

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 17/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Minor Moral Infraction

In many cases you can reduce the accused’s perception of the moral seriousness of the

matter. This is not to be confused with the legal seriousness. Fraud examiners and

interviewers should be careful to avoid making statements that could be construed as

relieving legal responsibility. Instead, you should play down the moral seriousness of the

misconduct. One effective way is through comparisons: “This problem we have doesn’t

mean you’re ‘Jack the Ripper.’ When you compare what you’ve done to things other people

do, this situation seems pretty insignificant, doesn’t it?”

Altruism

In many cases, the moral seriousness of the matter can be reduced by claiming the subject

acted for the benefit of others. This especially is true if the accused views herself as a caring

person: “I know you didn’t do this for yourself. I have looked into this matter carefully, and I

think you did this to help your husband, didn’t you?”

Genuine Need

In some cases, employee fraud is predicated by genuine financial need. For example, the

accused might be paying for the medical care of sick parents or a child. In those cases, the

following techniques might be effective: “You’re like everyone else: You have to put food on

the table. But in your position, it is very difficult to ask for help. You genuinely needed to do

this to survive, didn’t you?”

Diffuse Alibis

Even if the accused is presented with an appropriate rationalization, it is likely that he will

continue to deny culpability. When you are successful in stopping denials, the accused will

frequently present one or more reasons why he could not have committed the act in

question. You must quickly and decisively diffuse these alibis by convincing the accused of

the weight of the evidence. Alibis generally can be diffused using one of the following

methods.

Display Physical Evidence

408

409

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 18/21

It is common for most culpable people to overestimate the amount of physical evidence that

you possess. You should try to reinforce this notion through the way the evidence is

presented to the accused. The physical evidence—in fraud matters, usually documents—

generally should be displayed one piece at a time, in reverse order of importance. In this

way, the full extent of the evidence is not immediately known by the accused. When the

accused no longer denies culpability, you should stop displaying evidence.

Each time a document or piece of evidence is displayed, you should note its significance.

During this phase, the accused is still trying to come to grips with being caught; thus, you

should expect that the accused will attempt to lie. As with denials, you should interrupt the

expression of alibis and other falsehoods before they are fully articulated. Once the alibis

are diffused, you should return to the theme being developed.

Discuss Witnesses

Another technique for diffusing alibis is to discuss the testimony of witnesses. The objective

is to give enough information about what other people would say without providing too

much. Ideally, your statement will create the impression in the mind of the accused that

many people are in a position to contradict her story.

Again: Be cautioned about furnishing enough information to the accused to enable her to

identify the witnesses. This might place the witness in a difficult position, and the accused

could contact the witness in an effort to influence testimony. The accused could take

reprisals against potential witnesses, though such cases are rare.

Discuss Deceptions

The final technique is to discuss the accused’s deceptions. The purpose is to appeal to the

person’s logic, not to scold or degrade. This technique is sometimes the only one available if

physical evidence is lacking. As with other interview situations, the word “lying” should be

avoided.

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 19/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

Present Alternative

After the accused’s alibis have been diffused, he normally will become quiet and

withdrawn. Some people in this situation might cry. (If so, be comforting. Do not discourage

the accused from showing emotion.) In this stage the accused is deliberating whether to

confess. At this point you should present an alternative question to the accused. The

alternative question forces the accused to make one of two choices. One alternative allows

the accused a morally acceptable reason for the misdeed; the other paints the accused in a

negative light. Regardless of which answer the accused chooses, he is acknowledging guilt:

“Did you plan this deliberately, or did it just happen?” or “Did you just want extra money, or

did you do this because you had financial problems?”

Benchmark Admission

Either way the accused answers the alternative question, he has made a culpable statement,

or benchmark admission. Once the benchmark admission is made, the subject has made a

subconscious decision to confess. The questions above are structured so that the negative

alternative is presented first, followed by the positive alternative. In this way, the accused

has only to nod or say “yes” for the benchmark admission to be made. The accused might

also answer in the negative: “I didn’t do it deliberately.”

In the cases where the accused answers the alternative question in the negative, you should

press further for a positive admission: “Then you did it to take care of your financial

problems?”

Should the accused still not respond to the alternative question with a benchmark

admission, you should repeat the questions or variations thereof until the benchmark

admission is made. It is important that you get a response that is tantamount to a

commitment to confess. The questions for the benchmark admission should be constructed

as leading questions, so that they can be answered “yes” or “no,” rather than requiring any

sort of explanation; that will come later.

Reinforce Rationalization

Once the benchmark admission has been made, you should reinforce the confessor’s

decision by returning to the theme for the rationalization. This will help the confessor feel

comfortable and will let the person know that you do not look down on her. After

409

410

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 20/21

reinforcing the subject’s rationalization, you should make the transition into the verbal

confession, in which the details of the offense will be obtained.

Verbal Confession

The transition to the verbal confession is made when the accused furnishes the first detailed

information about the offense. Thereafter, it is your job to probe gently for additional

details—preferably those that would be known only to the perpetrator. As with any

interview, there are three general approaches to obtaining the verbal confession:

chronologically, by transaction, or by event. The approach to be taken should be governed

by the circumstances of the case.

During the admission-seeking interview, it is best to first confirm the general details of the

offense. For example, you will want the accused’s estimates of the amounts involved, other

parties to the offense, and the location of physical evidence. After these basic facts are

confirmed, you can then return to the specifics, in chronological order. It is imperative that

you obtain an early admission that the accused knew the conduct in question was wrong.

This confirms the essential element of intent.

Because of the nature of the psychology of confessions, most confessors will lie about one or

more aspects of the offense despite confirming overall guilt. When this

3/18/2018 Bookshelf Online: Principles of Fraud

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118233566/cfi/6/34!/4/2@0:0 21/21

PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.

410

411