Interviewing

Investigative Interviewing
Goal	Accurate, complete, voluntary information
Core skills	Rapport, active listening, open questions
Named models	Reid (accusatory); PEACE (non-accusatory)
Related	Evidence and Testimony, Report Writing

Investigative interviewing is the structured questioning of witnesses, complainants, sources and suspects to obtain accurate and complete information. In fraud and financial-crime work it complements documentary and digital evidence: interviews explain why transactions occurred, identify who authorised them, reveal relationships that records do not show, and often produce admissions or leads that no data set contains. Good interviewing is a learned skill built on rapport, disciplined listening and careful questioning, not on intimidation.^[1]

Because an interview may later become testimony or the basis of a report, how it is conducted and recorded matters as much as what is said. Coercive or leading technique can taint the information obtained and undermine its later use.

1 Rapport-building

Rapport — a working relationship of ease and trust between interviewer and subject — is consistently associated with fuller and more accurate accounts. It is established by a calm, respectful manner, by giving the subject time and space to speak, by active listening, and by treating even a suspect with basic dignity. Rapport is not manipulation: its function is to reduce the anxiety and defensiveness that suppress recall and candour. An interviewee who feels heard tends to say more, and what they say tends to be more reliable (general knowledge).

2 Active listening

Active listening means concentrating fully on what the subject says, signalling attention, and reflecting content back to confirm understanding rather than mentally rehearsing the next question. Techniques include paraphrasing ("so after the transfer you contacted the vendor — is that right?"), summarising, allowing silences that invite the subject to continue, and following up on the subject's own words. Active listening both improves the quality of information and reinforces rapport; it also helps the interviewer notice inconsistencies and gaps worth exploring.

3 Questioning: open-ended and baseline

The form of a question strongly shapes its answer. Open-ended questions ("tell me what happened," "describe how the invoices were approved") invite a free narrative and yield the richest, least contaminated information. Closed questions ("did you sign it?") are useful for pinning down specifics but produce little and can inadvertently supply the answer. Leading questions ("you approved it because he told you to, didn't you?") are avoided in good practice because they risk implanting or distorting the account.

A widely used tactic is to establish a baseline early in the interview by asking about neutral, non-threatening topics whose answers are known or verifiable. This shows the interviewer how the subject behaves and speaks when relaxed and truthful, providing a reference against which later responses to sensitive questions can be compared. Departures from the baseline — in verbal style, detail, or manner — are treated as areas to probe further, not as proof of anything on their own.

Question type	Effect	Best use
Open-ended	Free narrative, rich detail	Opening and exploration
Closed / probing	Specific facts	Confirming details
Baseline (neutral)	Reference behaviour	Early, before sensitive topics
Leading	Suggests the answer	Avoid — risks contamination

4 Statement analysis

Statement analysis examines the language of a subject's account — spoken or written — for markers that may indicate deception, evasion or omission. Analysts look at pronoun use, verb tense, unexplained gaps in a chronology, changes in terminology for the same person or object, hedging language, and passages of unusual vagueness or over-precision. The premise is that how people phrase an account can reveal where they are uncomfortable. Statement analysis is a source of investigative leads, not proof: its indicators are suggestive, culturally and individually variable, and must be corroborated by evidence.

5 Verbal and non-verbal cues

Interviewers observe both verbal cues (hesitation, qualifiers, sudden formality, refusal to answer directly) and non-verbal cues (posture shifts, gaze, self-soothing gestures). The research literature, however, is emphatic that no reliable single "tell" for deception exists, and that confidence in reading body language routinely outruns accuracy. Cues are therefore used only to guide where to probe, always relative to the subject's own baseline and never as a substitute for corroboration. Over-reliance on demeanour is one of the recognised causes of interview error.

6 Formal models: Reid and PEACE

Two named frameworks dominate discussions of interview method, and they represent opposite philosophies (general knowledge):

• The Reid Technique — a structured, accusatory method developed in the United States, built around behaviour analysis followed by a nine-step interrogation of a subject presumed guilty, using theme development and confrontation to move toward confession. It remains widely taught but is heavily criticised: its confrontational, guilt-presumptive posture is associated in the research literature with an elevated risk of false confessions, particularly from vulnerable subjects.
• PEACE — a non-accusatory model developed in the United Kingdom, named for its stages: Preparation and planning, Engage and explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate. PEACE treats the interview as information-gathering rather than confession-seeking, forbids deception and coercion, and emphasises open questions and rapport. It reflects a broad shift toward "investigative interviewing" designed to maximise accurate information while minimising the risk of false admissions.

These models are presented here as general professional knowledge; the trend in many jurisdictions has been away from accusatory interrogation and toward the rapport-based, non-coercive approach exemplified by PEACE.

7 Preserving testimony

An interview is only as useful as the record it leaves. Best practice is to record interviews in full (audio or video) where lawful and practicable, so that both the content and the manner of questioning can be reviewed, and so that the account cannot later be mischaracterised. Where recording is not possible, contemporaneous notes are taken and promptly written up. Preservation protects the interviewee (against claims that they said something they did not) and the investigator (against allegations of coercion), and it supports the eventual use of the account as evidence and in the investigator's report. As with physical evidence, recordings are handled under a documented chain of custody.

See also: Evidence and Testimony, Report Writing, Red Flags, Fraud Triangle.

References

1. OSCE. "Following the Money: A Compendium of Resources... Financial Investigations Related to Trafficking in Human Beings." 2019 (interviewing within financial investigation).
2. Reid and PEACE interviewing models — general professional knowledge; PEACE as the UK non-accusatory standard, Reid as the criticised US accusatory model.