Cracking the Human Code: Elevating Your Interviewing Skills in Fraud Investigations

In the world of fraud investigations, the paper trail often feels like the main event with analysis of bank statements, transaction records, emails, and contracts. However, anyone who has been neck deep in these types of investigations knows it’s the people behind the numbers who hold the real keys. Documents tell part of the story, but interviews are where the pieces come together or fall apart.

Mastering the art of interviewing is what separates good investigators from exceptional ones. Yet, many investigators report that interviews are the part of their work they feel least confident about. Why? Because it’s messy, emotional, and inherently human.

In this article, we’ll explore the key challenges investigators face in interviews, practical strategies to overcome them, and the mindset shifts needed to truly “crack the human code.”

Why Interviews Matter in Fraud Investigations

At its core, fraud is about deception, but not just deception on paper. It’s about people lying, omitting, rationalizing, and covering their tracks. A skilled fraud investigator understands that while the facts matter, the story behind the facts is what unlocks the investigation.

Interviews are where you uncover motivations, identify inconsistencies, test the plausibility of explanations, and sometimes secure that elusive confession. They are also where relationships are built. Even a reluctant witness or respondent can become more cooperative with the right approach.

But success in interviews requires intentional preparation, practiced skill, and a deep understanding of human behavior.

The Challenges for Fraud Investigators

Building Rapport with Reluctant or Defensive Subjects

Fraud subjects are rarely eager to talk. They may fear legal consequences, job loss, or reputation damage. Others may be convinced they’ve done nothing wrong or are determined to play innocent.

One of the most common mistakes investigators make is skipping over rapport-building, jumping straight into tough questions. But the truth is; if they don’t trust you, they won’t talk to you.

Rapport doesn’t mean being overly friendly or pretending to be their best friend. It’s about showing respect, demonstrating fairness, and creating a space where they feel heard. Simple things like using their name, acknowledging their stress, and expressing a nonjudgmental tone can have a positive impact. I like to think of it as tuning a radio before you get a clear signal, we need to connect, or the message gets lost.

Spotting Deception in Real Time

Fraud suspects are often experienced liars or at least determined to avoid self-incrimination. Investigators can fall into the trap of relying on old myths: that liars fidget more, won’t make eye contact, or “look nervous.” Research shows that deception cues are often subtle and highly individual. The key is establishing a behavioral baseline early in the interview, and noting how the person talks, moves, and expresses themselves. We then watch for deviations from these observations.

Details matter, so listen closely for verbal cues: inconsistent stories, unnecessary details, or phrases like “to be honest” (often a flag that they’re anything but). These things are the best path to understanding and getting to the truth. Detecting deception isn’t about playing human lie detector; it’s about spotting leads worth probing further.

Asking Questions That Elicit Truth, Not Just Data

Many investigators fall into the “checklist trap” as they march through a list of questions without adapting to the flow of the conversation. This leads to shallow answers and missed opportunities.

Great interviews are conversations, not interrogations. Use open-ended questions:

• “Walk me through what happened that day.”
• “Help me understand your thinking when you made that decision.”
• “What alternatives did you consider at the time?”

These kinds of questions encourage the interviewee to explain, reflect, and (often) reveal more than they intended. Remember: people like to explain themselves. Let them.

Avoiding Confirmation Bias

Fraud investigators often enter an interview with a working theory. That’s good investigative practice, but it’s dangerous when it blinds you to new or contradictory information.

Confirmation bias shows up when you only hear what supports your theory or when you ask leading questions that subtly push the interviewee toward your expected answers. For example:

• Leading: “You knew that was against policy, right?”
• Neutral: “How familiar were you with the policy at that time?”

The goal is to stay curious. Treat each interview as a chance to test, not confirm, your assumptions.

Balancing Ethics and Pressure

Fraud investigations carry high stakes, and there’s often pressure (from employers, clients, or even internally) to get answers and produce quick results. But effective interviewing is never about forcing answers.

Aggressive or coercive tactics can invalidate evidence, damage reputations, and harm the integrity of the investigation. Ethical interviewing means respecting the subject’s rights, staying within legal and professional boundaries, and understanding that not every interview will yield dramatic breakthroughs.

Ironically, the best way to increase your chances of success is to remove the pressure and focus on process over outcome. Build trust, ask good questions, listen carefully, and let the truth emerge naturally.

Managing Yourself: Nerves, Bias, and Listening

Let’s not forget the investigator’s own mindset. Even seasoned professionals can feel nervous before a high-stakes interview. Preparation helps, but so does self-awareness.

– Are you going in with preconceived notions?
– Are you mentally rehearsing your next question instead of fully listening?
– Are you too focused on your notes or checklist to notice what’s unfolding in front of you?

The best investigators stay present, adapt in real time, and stay humble enough to recognize when they might be missing something.

A Touch of Humor: The Unexpected Reality

One of the universal truths of interviewing is that you’ll occasionally encounter something completely unexpected. Maybe it’s the subject who confesses to more than you were investigating (true story), or the one who spins an elaborate tale.

Remember, fraud investigations, and in fact all investigations, are serious, but the human element is unpredictable, sometimes baffling, and occasionally even a little funny. Approach each interview with professionalism, but don’t lose your sense of humor. It will keep you sane, human, and connected to the work.

Final Thoughts

In the end, interviewing in fraud investigations is both art and science. It’s about blending careful preparation with flexible, adaptive human engagement. It’s about knowing the facts but also knowing how to listen beyond the facts.

If you want to elevate your fraud investigations, invest in your interviewing skills. The numbers may point you in the right direction, but it’s the conversations that will get you to the truth.

And remember, sometimes the trickiest part of fraud isn’t following the money, it’s following the story.