EmmaWelcome back to VoraPrep Audio's Office Hours. I'm Emma.

MarcusAnd I'm Marcus. Today we're tackling a topic that’s all about human interaction, but with very high stakes: fraud investigation interviews.

EmmaExactly. The exam loves to test this with scenarios. Let's use a classic one. We're investigating inventory theft. Our analysis points to an employee, John. But we also need to talk to his supervisor, Sarah, who manages the daily counts. So, Marcus, two interviews, one investigation. Where do we even begin?

MarcusWe begin with the objective. This is the most important first step. The goal of any fraud interview isn't just about finding the "bad guy." It's about gathering facts.

EmmaSo it's not just about getting a confession?

MarcusNot at all. A good interview can help you corroborate evidence you already have, or even refute it. It can help you identify other witnesses, maybe even other people involved. And most fundamentally, it helps you build out the full story—the who, what, when, where, and why of the scheme. An admission is just one possible outcome.

EmmaOkay, that makes sense. So back to our scenario. We have Sarah, the supervisor, and John, our main suspect. Our objective must be different for each of them. How do we approach Sarah?

MarcusWith Sarah, we're likely seeking information. We'd conduct what's called an Informational Interview. The goal here is to gather facts and understand the process. We believe she's a witness, not a participant.

EmmaSo what does that *sound* like? Am I grilling her about the missing inventory?

MarcusThe opposite. You're non-confrontational. Think of yourself as a journalist trying to understand how the warehouse works. You build rapport. You use open-ended questions like, "Sarah, can you walk me through the daily inventory count process?" or "Tell me about how items are logged out for shipment." You want her to tell a story.

EmmaYou're encouraging a narrative, not asking yes-or-no questions.

MarcusPrecisely. You listen, you take detailed notes, and you let her talk. An aggressive approach would shut her down. You want her to be a resource, and you can't do that if she feels attacked.

EmmaOkay, that covers Sarah. We're gathering background, corroborating facts. But now we have to talk to John, where our evidence suggests he's involved. That can't be the same kind of friendly chat.

MarcusIt isn't. With John, we're likely moving into an Admission-Seeking Interview. The objective is different. We have a solid basis—what we call predication—to believe he's involved, and the goal of the interview is to obtain an admission of that.

EmmaSo the tone completely shifts. How do we handle that without just shouting "Did you do it?"

MarcusIt's a strategic conversation, not an accusation. You're more direct. You might present pieces of evidence one by one and ask for his explanation. "John, we have security logs showing you were in the warehouse after hours on Tuesday. The inventory system, however, shows no official work order. Can you help me understand that?"

EmmaYou're pointing out the inconsistencies.

MarcusYes. And you might offer rationalizations. These aren't excuses, but ways to make it easier for the person to confess. You might say something like, "I can see how financial pressures could make someone feel like they had no other choice." You're developing a theme that allows them to save face while telling the truth.

EmmaThis feels like it's getting into tricky legal territory. As a CFE, what are the big guardrails I need to have in my head?

MarcusThis is where so many people get tripped up on the exam. The first thing everyone thinks of is Miranda rights.

EmmaRight, "You have the right to remain silent..." Do we need to say that?

MarcusAlmost certainly not. Miranda rights only apply under two specific conditions, and both must be met. First, the person must be in 'custody.' Second, the interrogation must be by a 'government actor'—think law enforcement. As a private fraud examiner for a company, you are generally not a government actor, and the employee is not in police custody.

EmmaSo, for most internal corporate investigations, Miranda is off the table. What if the person we're interviewing is a public employee, say at a city agency? Does that change things?

MarcusIt does. Now you need to think about Garrity Rights. These protect public employees from being forced to incriminate themselves during an internal investigation. If their employer compels them to answer questions under threat of being fired, their answers cannot be used against them in a criminal case.

EmmaSo they can still be fired for not talking, but if they do talk, it's shielded from criminal prosecution.

MarcusExactly. It's a specific protection for public sector employees.

EmmaOkay, one more. What about union employees? I feel like that always adds another layer.

MarcusIt does. For unionized employees, you have Weingarten Rights. This gives a union member the right to have a union representative present during any investigatory interview that they reasonably believe could lead to disciplinary action. If they ask for a rep, you must stop and wait for one.

EmmaSo we have Miranda for government custody, Garrity for public employees, and Weingarten for union reps. But beyond those legal rights, what about our own professional code as CFEs?

MarcusThis is the most important rule of all. It comes from the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics, Article IV. A CFE shall *never* express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of any person.

EmmaNever. So even if John confesses, I can't say, "Well, it's clear John is guilty."

MarcusYou cannot. Your role is to be a fact-finder, not a judge or jury. You collect the evidence, you document the confession, and you present the facts. The legal determination of guilt happens in a courtroom, nowhere else. On the exam, any answer choice that has you declaring someone's guilt is an automatic fail.

EmmaLet's follow that thread. We're in the interview with John. We've presented the evidence, and he admits to the theft. What is the absolute next thing we must do?

MarcusYou need to get a signed written statement. A verbal confession is good, but a written one is powerful evidence. It locks in their story and makes it very difficult for them to change it later.

EmmaWhat goes into that statement? Is it a special form?

MarcusIt doesn't have to be, but it needs key elements. It should include the facts of what happened—the who, what, when, where, how—in the person's own words. It must also contain a sentence stating that the statement is being made voluntarily and is true to the best of their knowledge.

EmmaAnd who writes it? Me or John?

MarcusThe gold standard is to have John write it out himself, in his own handwriting. That makes it very hard to dispute later. But sometimes a person is too upset or just won't. In that case, you can write it for them, using their exact words as much as possible.

EmmaBut if I write it, isn't it just my version of the story?

MarcusThat's the critical step. If you write it, you then give it to John to read carefully. He must be allowed to make any corrections he wants. And for every single correction he makes, he needs to initial it right there on the page.

EmmaAh, so initialing each change proves he reviewed it line-by-line and agreed with the final version.

MarcusPrecisely. Then he signs and dates the bottom. That process—the review, the initialed corrections, the signature—shows that it's a voluntary and accurate reflection of his admission. It makes the document incredibly solid.

EmmaI can see how skipping that initialing step could weaken the whole thing. The exam would probably test that detail.

MarcusAbsolutely. It's the difference between a good piece of evidence and a great one.

EmmaThis whole process is so structured. It seems like the key is knowing what you want to achieve before you even walk in the room.

MarcusThat's it exactly. You plan your strategy. You decide: is this informational or admission-seeking? You consider the person's rights. You prepare your key questions. Then you execute the plan, staying flexible but always focused on the objective.

EmmaAnd then you document everything immediately after.

MarcusRight away, while it's fresh in your mind. Write up your formal notes, detail what was said, what you observed, and plan your next steps based on any new leads. Every interview should be a building block for the next part of the investigation.

EmmaI feel like I'm getting a much clearer picture, but it's also a lot to remember under exam pressure. The different rights, the steps for a written statement...

MarcusIt is, and practice is key. With VoraPrep, you get to work through these scenarios over and over. VoraPrep is a full exam-prep app — lessons, practice questions, and an AI tutor in one place. You can find it at Vora Prep dot com. It's free to try, and it really helps solidify these complex workflows.

EmmaOkay, so before we wrap, let's hit the common exam traps one more time. You mentioned the Miranda rights confusion.

MarcusYes. The trap is thinking Miranda warnings are required in a private corporate setting. Remember, it's for government actors and custody. Don't fall for it.

EmmaAnd the second one is mis-matching the interview type.

MarcusCorrect. Going into an interview with a witness like Sarah using a confrontational, admission-seeking style. You'll get nothing and may even compromise the investigation. You have to tailor the approach to the person and the objective.

EmmaAnd the final, biggest trap?

MarcusViolating ACFE Article IV. Your job is to find facts, not determine guilt. The moment you express an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence, you've crossed a critical ethical line and picked the wrong answer on the exam.

EmmaSo, to boil it all down: for interviews, we need to know our objective. Are we a reporter seeking information, or are we strategically playing chess, seeking an admission?

MarcusPerfect analogy. Reporter or chess player.

EmmaWe need to know the rules of the road: Miranda, Garrity, and Weingarten rights. And our own prime directive as CFEs is to state facts, never an opinion of guilt.

MarcusAnd if you get that admission, document it with a signed, written statement. Best if they write it, but if you do, make sure they read, correct, initial every change, and sign.

EmmaThat clarifies it perfectly. Thanks, Marcus.

MarcusYou're welcome. Keep up the great work, everyone. We'll be back at the next Office Hours.