Interviewing Suspects & Signed Statements * Flashcards
Which of the following is a recommended tactic for interrupting an accused’s denials during an admission-seeking interview?
A. Reasoning
B. Repeated interruptions
C. Delays
D. All of the above
D. All of the above
Once a suspect utters a denial in an admission-seeking interview, it becomes extremely difficult for the accused to change his response, because doing so would be an admission that he lied. Therefore, the interviewer must prevent an outright denial, thereby making it easier for the subject to confess at a later time. An innocent person is unlikely to allow the interviewer to prevail in stopping the denial.
Fraud examiners can use several techniques to stop or interrupt denials, including delays, repeated interruptions, and reasoning.
When confessing to fraud, suspects tend to provide accurate details on the amount of funds involved and number of instances to relieve themselves of the guilt of their dishonest actions. T/F
False
In fraud matters especially, it is common for the accused to underestimate the amount of funds involved as well as the number of instances. This is probably because of the human mind’s natural tendency to block out unpleasant matters. If the subject provides an estimate of these items, the interviewer should be skeptical of the figure’s accuracy. If the accused’s response is “I don’t know,” start high with the amounts and gradually come down.
Brown, a Certified Fraud Examiner, is conducting an admission-seeking interview of Blue, a fraud suspect. Blue has decided to confess. How should Brown go about getting all the relevant information?
A. Obtain the details in reverse chronological order
B. Obtain the details in order of relevance
C. Get the general information and then move to the specifics
D. None of the above
C. Get the general information and then move to the specifics
During the admission-seeking interview, it is best to first confirm the general details of the offense. For example, the interviewer will want the accused to provide estimates of the amounts involved, name other parties involved in the offense, and give the location of physical evidence. After these basic facts are obtained, the interviewer can return to the specifics, in chronological order.
When preparing a room for an admission-seeking interview, the suspect’s chair should be:
A. Within full view of the fraud examiner
B. Behind a desk or table
C. Higher than the interviewer’s chair
D. As comfortable as possible
A. Within full view of the fraud examiner
The suspect should not be allowed to sit behind a desk or have any other barriers between him and the fraud examiner. The purpose is to allow the fraud examiner a full view of the suspect’s body language and to remove any psychological comfort the suspect might feel by “hiding” behind something. The suspect and the fraud examiner should be separated by about four to six feet.
Gray, a fraud suspect, has confessed to Blue, a Certified Fraud Examiner, that he has embezzled funds. Blue is unsure whether Gray had an accomplice. Which of the following is the most appropriate question concerning accomplices?
A. “Did someone else know?”
B. “We have evidence someone else is involved. Who is it?”
C. “Was anyone else involved?”
D. “Who else knew about this besides you?”
D. “Who else knew about this besides you?”
Although most frauds are solo ventures—committed without the aid of an accomplice—the interviewer should determine whether others were involved. To obtain this information, the interviewer should not ask if anyone else was involved; instead, he should phrase the question similar to this: “Who else knew about this besides you?”
By asking who else “knew,” the interviewer is not only asking for the names of possible conspirators, but also about others who might have known what was going on and failed to report it. This question should be worded as “Who else knew?” rather than “Did someone else know?”
Green, a Certified Fraud Examiner, is conducting an admission-seeking interview of Brown, a fraud suspect. Brown has confessed to having committed the fraud, but he is denying anyone else was involved. However, Green knows this is untrue. What should Green do next?
A. Get Brown’s written admission before continuing the interview.
B. Proceed as if the falsehood has been accepted as truth and return to it later.
C. Mention the penalties involved in perjury.
D. Proceed directly to lay out his evidence against Brown’s co-conspirators.
B. Proceed as if the falsehood has been accepted as truth and return to it later.
Because of the psychology of confessions, most confessors will lie about one or more aspects of the offense, even though they confirm overall guilt. When this happens during the verbal confession, the interviewer should make a mental note of the discrepancy and proceed as if the falsehood had been accepted as truth.
Such discrepancies should be saved until all other relevant facts are provided by the accused. If the discrepancies are material to the offense, then the interviewer should either resolve them at the end of the verbal confession or wait and correct them in the written confession. If not material, such information can be omitted from the written confession.
For a signed, written confession to be admissible in court, the statement must be:
A. In the wording of the declarant
B. In the handwriting of the declarant
C. Signed by at least two witnesses
D. None of the above
D. None of the above
There is no legal requirement that a statement must be in the handwriting or wording of the declarant. A statement’s wording should be precise, and because the fraud examiner usually knows how to draft a valid statement, it is generally not a good idea to let a confessor draft the statement himself. In addition, while there is no legal requirement for the confession to be signed by at least two witnesses, it is recommended that two people witness the signing of a statement.
When attempting to diffuse a suspect’s alibi in a case where there is little physical evidence, a recommended technique is to discuss the accused’s prior deceptions. T/F
True
A useful technique to diffuse an alibi is to discuss the accused’s prior deceptions. The goal is to appeal to the accused’s logic, not to scold or degrade. This technique is particularly useful in cases with a lack of physical evidence. As with other interview situations, the word lying should be avoided.
Baker, a Certified Fraud Examiner, has obtained an oral confession from Gamma, a fraud suspect. Gamma confessed to committing fraud, and he admitted to smuggling drugs in an unrelated case. How should Baker handle these admissions in Gamma’s written confession?
A. Baker should include both crimes in the same statement
B. Baker should omit the information concerning the drug smuggling
C. Baker should take separate statements for each of the unrelated crimes
D. None of the above
C. Baker should take separate statements for each of the unrelated crimes
When taking a signed statement from a suspect, there should not be more than one written statement for each offense. If facts are inadvertently omitted, they can later be added to the original statement as an addendum. For legal purposes, prepare separate statements for unrelated offenses. This rule applies because the target may be tried more than once—once for each offense.
When shifting from assessment questions to admission-seeking questions, the fraud examiner should provide a transitional theme that is designed to make the subject believe that he has been caught. T/F
True
A transitional theme is necessary when proceeding from assessment-seeking questions to admission-seeking questions. In part, the theme should be designed to make the subject believe that he has been caught. Under the ideal circumstance, the interviewer should leave the room for a few minutes before proceeding to admission-seeking questions, saying that he has to leave to “check on something.”
Gamma, a Certified Fraud Examiner, is interviewing Beta, a fraud suspect. Gamma asks Beta, “Who in the company could be responsible for this situation?” If Beta is guilty, he is more likely to say:
A. “It could be Green, but I’m not sure.”
B. “It wasn’t me, that’s for sure.”
C. “It wasn’t anyone I work with.”
D. “It could have been anybody.”
D. “It could have been anybody.”
Both the honest respondent and the liar will have a natural reluctance to name others involved in misdeeds. However, the liar will frequently refuse to implicate possible suspects, no matter how much pressure the interviewer applies. This is because the culpable person does not want the circle of suspicion to be narrowed.
Additionally, both the truthful and untruthful person will normally object to and deny a direct accusation. But when compared to an innocent person, a culpable person is more likely to stop short of an outright denial (“I didn’t do it.”) and is more apt to furnish the interviewer with explanations as to why he is not the responsible party. An innocent person is unlikely to allow the interviewer to prevail in stopping the denial.
In admission-seeking interviews, there are several explanations that employees give to rationalize their criminal behavior. Which of the following is NOT usually one of them?
A. Inadequate recognition
B. Defective moral character
C. Financial problems
D. Aberration of conduct
B. Defective moral character
There are numerous rationalizations used by employees to explain away criminal misconduct and fraud: unfair treatment, inadequate recognition, financial problems, aberration of conduct, family problems, accuser’s actions, stress, drugs, alcohol, revenge, depersonalizing the victim, minor moral infraction, altruism, and genuine need. The accused will use almost any rationalization that does not portray him as a “bad person.”
An admission-seeking interview is specifically designed to:
A. Obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing
B. Gather background information about the subject
C. Determine if the subject has withheld key information
D. All of the above
A. Obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing
The admission-seeking interview is designed to obtain a legal admission of wrongdoing. It also serves various other purposes. For example, it seeks to clear an innocent person and encourage a culpable person to confess. A culpable individual will frequently confess during the admission-seeking phase of an interview, while an innocent person will not do so unless threats or coercion are used. Also, the interviewer will seek to obtain a valid confession. And finally, admission-seeking interviews are designed to convince the confessor to sign a written statement acknowledging the facts.
Which of the following is the most appropriate example of an alternative question?
A. “Did you, or did you not, commit this crime?”
B. “Did you deliberately plan this, or did it just happen?”
C. “How else might this situation be explained?”
D. “Will you repay the money now or later?”
B. “Did you deliberately plan this, or did it just happen?”
The alternative question forces the accused to make one of two choices, both of which imply guilt. One alternative provides the accused with 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.
Generally, it is an indication of deception when an interview subject accused of fraud becomes angry while denying wrongdoing. T/F
False
When accused of wrongdoing, the typical guilty person will react with silence. If the accused does deny culpability, those denials will usually be weak. In some cases, the accused will almost mumble the denial. It is common for the culpable individual to avoid outright denials. Rather, he will give reasons why he could not have committed the act in question.
Conversely, the innocent person will sometimes react with genuine shock at being accused. It is not at all unusual for an innocent person who is wrongfully accused to react with anger. In contrast to the guilty person, the innocent person will strongly deny carrying out the act or acts in question.
