33,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
Get federal investigative insight and guidance on conducting thorough investigations and case-building The ability to conduct thorough and effective investigations is a skill that has become increasingly in-demand across many industries. At the same time, investigative resources are dwindling as markets recede. Regulation and financial hurdles impede traditional investigation processes. Even seasoned professionals are finding themselves overtasked or lacking the experience to pursue the types of cases that are accumulating. In Investigator and Fraud Fighter Guidebook: Operation War Stories, author Charles E. Piper, CFE provides insight and guidance on how to conduct thorough and complete investigations while juggling a caseload. Piper served over 30 years in law enforcement-including 20 as an award-winning Federal Special Agent-Criminal Investigator. His wide array of experience allows him to lend a high-level perspective to the art and science of professional investigations of criminal, civil, and administrative cases. In the book, Piper provides guidance on conducting thorough and complete investigations (even with fewer resources) and spotting red flags that often indicate big-picture problems. Piper also shows how to: * Identify the suspect's other wrongful acts (similar and otherwise) * Identify similar wrongful acts committed by others, and predict future occurrences * Identify systemic weaknesses, waste, and abuse * Identify changes and corrections necessary to prevent future occurrences The book includes Piper's real-life investigative examples to illustrate important concepts. Whether the matter is public, private, or military, the same basic investigative principles apply. Things that may seem totally unrelated may hold the keys that crack the cases. The Investigator and Fraud Fighter Guidebook: Operation War Stories provides the acumen and judgment required to pick up on these clues and successfully conclude investigations.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 477
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014
Ähnliche
Additional praise forInvestigator and Fraud Fighter Guidebook: Operation War Stories
“This guidebook is a game changer! Readers will learn to conduct investigations like never before. Charles Piper’s decades of real-life investigative war stories provide insight all investigators and future investigators will appreciate.”
—Scott Baldwin, Licensed Private Investigator and Owner of Advanced Investigative & Screening Solutions, Houston, Texas
“I sure hope the bad guys don’t ever get hold of this. Charles Piper has written the book on fraud—and how to expose it. A tough, thorough investigator, Piper details how to peel back layers of financial schemes. His informal style is engaging. Each chapter includes personal anecdotes that provide rich context for cases that don’t always go right. It should be required reading for law enforcement and financial-crimes examiners.”
—Robert Anglen, Investigative Reporter, The Arizona Republic, 12 News (KPNX)
“[Investigator and Fraud Fighter Guidebook: Operation War Stories] by Mr. Piper is very informative and will add great insight to fraud investigators. His stories and how he worked through problems that all fraud fighters will encounter will give both newcomers and old time investigators encouragement and are thought provoking. An excellent book.
—Durand Ferguson, CFE, Senior Audit Advisor, Memphis, Tennessee
“A good investigator is always learning. A great investigator uses his experience to help others learn. In this book, Charles E. Piper, CFE, shares a lifetime of experience to provide a critical framework for approaching investigative work and understanding the managerial environment. Whether new on the job or a veteran of many years of service, this is a book that every investigator must read.”
—Gilbert R. Jimenez, Licensed Private Investigator; Principal, Insight Investigation Services of Chicago, IL; Attorney; Former Deputy Inspector General, Illinois
Investigator and Fraud Fighter Guidebook
Operation War Stories
Charles E. Piper, CFE
Cover image: ©iStock/paci77 Cover design: Wiley
Copyright © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Piper, Charles E., 1957– Investigator and fraud fighter guidebook: operation war stories / Charles E. Piper. pages cm Includes index. ISBN 978-1-118-87117-1 (hardback)—ISBN 978-1-118-87847-7 (ebk)— ISBN 978-1-118-87850-7 (ebk) 1. Criminal investigation. 2. Investigations. I. Title. HV8073.P565 2014 363.25—dc23
2013046820
CONTENTS
Preface
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 The Successful Investigator
The Basics
Investigators
If You Have the PIG, You Have It Made
Investigation
Success
Chapter 2 Case Initiation
Jurisdiction, Venue, and Purview
Believable, Reliable, or Credible Source of Information
Dollar Loss
Seriousness/Harm
Caseload
Resources
Funding/Finances
Investigators’ Desire
Investigative Priorities
Projected Remedy
Prosecutor’s Prerogative
Media or Public Interest
Political Interests
Chapter 3 Conducting Thorough Investigations
Questions to Answer
Seven Questions: Five Ws and Two Hs
Before, During, and After
Chapter 4 Expanding Investigative Efforts
Comparisons
NCIC
INTERPOL
Resources
Seven Questions: Five Ws and Two Hs Plus “Else”
Currently, Previously, or in the Future
Thinking Like Others
Three Investigative Exploration Approaches
Follow the Same Blueprint
Chapter 5 Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Systemic Weaknesses
Fraud
Waste
Abuse
Systemic Weaknesses
Ten Simultanous Investigations
Suggestions for Improvement
Chapter 6 Summary Reports
Types of Investigative Reports
Official Files and Working Files
Other Reports
Preparing to Write
Length of Reports
Attachments and Exhibits to Reports
Reports Should Stand Alone
Report Formats
Common Report-Writing Mistakes
Chapter 7 The Investigator’s Toolbox: Resources, Tools, and Techniques
Investigative Resources
Investigative Tools and Techniques
Search Warrants
Subpoenas
Interceptions and Tracking Devices
NCIC
Mail Covers
Trash Covers
Undercover Assignments
Photography and Video, and Audio Recordings
Laboratory Analysis
Informants
Polygraphs and Deception Detectors
Analysis and Audits
Other Case Files and Police Reports
Ask
Chapter 8 Interviewing
Interviews and Interrogation
Rapport
Listen and Then Talk
Note Taking
Corroboration
Word Choice
Planning
Body Language
Props
Finish the Job
Empathy
Statement Analysis
Think Plural
Interview Notes
Interview Room Sketches and Photographs
Chapter 9 Case Planning
Plans Change
Murphy’s Law
Private Investigations
Administrative Responsibilities
Case Files
Electronic Case Folder
Working File
Official File
Investigative Plan
Summary
Juggling a Caseload and Time Management
Chapter 10 Large-Scale Investigations
Communication
Planning
Interview Log
Re: Strategy
Final Summary Report
Attachments and Exhibits
Postdraft Report
Report Distribution
Investigative Notes and Evidence
Chapter 11 Making Presentations
Graphics, Charts, Visual Aids, Photos, and Videos
Investigator’s Appearance and Voice
A Copy for the Prosecutor
Presentations to Supervisors
Indictments, Convictions, and Dollar Recoveries
Chapter 12 Providing Testimony
Dealing with Opposing Counsel
Visual Aids in Court
Make Sure You Understand the Question
Chapter 13 Closing the Case
Old Case Files
Evidence
Recommendations for Improvement
Suspensions, Debarment, and Improvement Plans
Chapter 14 Personal and Professional Growth
Training
Networking
Physical Fitness
Morale
Insurance and Representation
Preparing for the Future
Teddy Roosevelt
Conclusion
Appendix Samples of Case Presentation Visual Aids
About the Author
Index
List of Illustrations
Chapter 10
Exhibit 10.1 Large-Scale Investigation Interview Log Sheet Example for Possible Corrupt Procurement Case
Conclusion
Exhibit C.1 Piper Method of Conducting Thorough and Complete Investigations
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Preface
Chapter
Pages
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
Preface
Growing up on the South Side of Chicago in the early 1960s through mid-1970s was a lot of fun. Actually, I don’t think I ever really grew up. Having worked in the field of law enforcement and investigations for approximately 35 years (spanning from the late 1970s through current day), I’ve been able to combine two of my favorite things (and even got/get paid for it): having fun (while being daring) and catching bad guys.
I’m not quite sure if my career choice was more influenced by reading superhero comic books in the local barber shop as a kid or just by having a general dislike for bullies and people who harm others. Even as a youngster riding around on my bike with baseball cards held with clothespins flapping through the tire spokes, I had great admiration for law enforcement officers: specifically the patrol officers of the Chicago Police Department. Back then there were two large burly cops in every squad car and only one blue light on the roof. There were no cell phones in those days; but police call boxes with telephones inside were located on select street corners. Over the years many changes have been made in police work, but the ability to conduct thorough and complete investigations has always been an important part of preventing, stopping, and solving criminal activity.
After joining the profession myself and since becoming a private investigator, I’ve successfully completed investigations from coast to coast and even a few in Europe. After all these years, and having worked in so many different geographical locations, some say that I have more stories than Sears Tower. (Yeah, I know they renamed it; but it’s still Sears Tower to me.)
The stories accumulated while on the job are usually referred to as war stories, and when told in the right environment, at the right time, those stories have often helped other cops, investigators, and fraud fighters become more effective in their profession. Sometimes they’ve also resulted in a lot of laughs.
The intent of this book is to provide current and future investigators, as well as fraud fighters, with my personal professional insight and descriptions of investigative practices, methodologies, techniques, and approaches utilized to conduct thorough and complete investigations. The method of communication will include the telling of many war stories.
I’ve been extremely fortunate during most of my life because most often I’ve been able to do whatever I wanted to do. The only exceptions were when I was in grade school and in high school; but even then I often did what I wanted (much to the dismay of my parents and teachers).
I got my start in law enforcement in the U.S. Army’s Military Police (MP) Corps progressing through the ranks and serving as an MP officer, a squad leader, and an MP investigator. I also worked on the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Command’s Drug Suppression Team. After seven years in the Army, I became a uniformed city police officer and then a supervisory detective while also going to college full time. After earning my bachelor’s degree in criminology, I served for over 20 years as a federal special agent—criminal investigator. My office assignments included Memphis, Tennessee; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. During my career I’ve conducted investigations from coast to coast (from Los Angeles, California, to Washington, DC, and from North Dakota to Texas). At the time of this writing, I am a licensed private investigator, consultant, trainer, and a Certified Fraud Examiner.
Because of my childhood background, training, experience, use of appropriate tools and resources, and sometimes a little luck, I’ve often solved cases that many thought were unsolvable. I have frequently linked criminal activity that was officially reported, not reported, and sometimes not even previously known to have occurred. Over the years, I’ve also implemented measures and made recommendations to deter and prevent future occurrences of wrongdoing and criminal activity. I’ve been fortunate to have led federal investigative task forces and worked jointly with some of the finest and best trained investigators in the United States, including those from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); U.S. Postal Inspection Service; numerous federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG); the U.S. military investigative agencies; and many others. While in Germany, serving as a U.S. Army MP officer, I also had the opportunity to work a few times with the German polizei (police), who are some of the best-trained police officers in the world.
Over the years, I have provided formal and informal training to numerous law enforcement officers and investigators. My teaching objectives are for those individuals to become as effective as possible in their professions. I also want them to have fun when doing their jobs and to be able to go home at the end of their shifts unharmed (give or take a few scrapes and bruises).
Some of the best training received is not in a classroom; it’s through work completed in the field. Sometimes investigative successes are preceded by making mistakes—sometimes huge ones! In fact, over the years, I think I have become a self-educated expert at knowing what not to do! Therefore, when training others (as in this book), I make it a point not only to teach how to do things correctly but also how not to do things.
It is usually wiser to learn from others’ trial-and-error experiences than trying to learn everything for yourself. I hope this book serves as a reference guide for many investigators and fraud fighters across the globe to conduct more thorough and complete investigations.
Many different approaches, methods, and steps can be utilized when conducting investigations, and they are usually left to the discretion of the investigator (unless their boss is a micromanager). This book provides investigators and fraud fighters with personal insight not collectively provided in other books, manuals, or training classes. I hope it helps new investigators and fraud fighters get off to good starts and helps seasoned investigators become even better at their jobs.
CAUTION: Readers should be aware that this book contains war stories and other information that is sometimes humorous and enlightening and may include more than a touch of sarcasm.
I hope that readers don’t consider the stories offensive (don’t worry—the language is clean). This book also occasionally ridicules past and present investigative and supervisory strategies, methodologies, and practices often utilized by others. In my opinion, some of the best investigative successes and war stories come from rocking the boat, traveling the path less traveled, following instincts, and occasionally being a bit of a maverick.
In an effort to avoid any finger pointing at any particular federal investigative agencies, most often I refer to investigative agencies generically, as federal investigative agencies. However, occasionally I mention the actual agencies or organizations—especially when praise is warranted. When referring to supervisory personnel in this writing I will often use male pronouns but I am not necessarily referring to either sex.
Large investigative agencies often call proactive investigative activity an, “Operation” when the effort is directed at specific targets/causes with specific objectives. Usually those operations are conducted covertly or semicovertly (at least in the early stages). Investigative operations typically have (somewhat related) catchy-sounding names or phrases that the investigative agency usually enjoys flaunting to the media at or near the conclusion of the investigations.
Sometimes those well-intended operations become more of an embarrassment, not only to the participating investigative agencies but to the entire U.S. Government. For example: Between 2006 and 2011, the ATF ran an undercover operation named Operation Fast and Furious. This was a gunwalking sting operation in Arizona in which the ATF purposely allowed weapons to be illegally sold, hoping the guns could be tracked to Mexican drug cartel leaders. The intent of the operation was to stop or slow the flow of firearms into Mexico. It’s been reported that during the operation, about 2,000 firearms were sold but less than half that amount were recovered. Many ATF field agents and others questioned the tactics used during operation. Reportedly some of the guns tracked by the ATF were later found at crime scenes on both sides of the border and where a U.S. Border Patrol Agent was killed. Mexican authorities have said that some of these guns were found at crime scenes where numerous Mexican civilians were killed or maimed.
On a more positive note, a press release described a 2012 FBI undercover operation called Operation Card Shop, which resulted in 24 arrests in 13 countries. The operation targeted “carding” crimes in which crooks used the Internet to exploit or traffic in bank account and personal identification of victims as well as stolen credit card information.
Police officers, investigators, and fraud fighters across the globe who conduct extremely thorough and complete investigations end up with lots of their own war stories. It is my hope that this book will assist investigators in accomplishing their objectives.
NOTE: Investigators and fraud fighters should consult legal counsel and/or agency policies and procedures before considering or implementing any investigative activity. Always follow all applicable international, federal, state, and other laws, and rules before considering or conducting any investigative activities.
Acknowledgments
This book would never have been possible if the U.S. Army had not given me an opportunity to enlist in August 1976. Thanks to a few high-ranking Army leaders (Chief Warrant Officer “Chief” Moore, First Sergeant “Top” Chester Baker, and a few others), I was given an opportunity to pursue my law enforcement and investigative dreams and started accumulating many of the war stories shared in this book. None of us knew at the time that I’d later serve over 30 years in law enforcement and investigations. I am grateful to those and other leaders who gave me the chance to serve in law enforcement.
I learned from, worked with, and teamed with countless superb military police officers, investigators, city cops, detectives, federal agents, and fraud fighters as we accomplished our mutual goals of catching bad guys and stopping criminal activity.
I was fortunate to have served under many outstanding law enforcement supervisors including but not limited to: Randy Cook, Tom Bonnar, and the late Don Mancuso. By far the very best and most effective law enforcement and investigative supervisor I ever worked for was Mr. Richard Messersmith. He served the United States of America well for over 40 years and it was always a pleasure working for and with him. He always led by example. Under his leadership, I pursued and accomplished goals even I did not think were possible.
I’m grateful for having the opportunities to have worked closely with some of the finest federal prosecutors across the country including: Blaine Welsh, Roger Wenthe, Paul Padda, Crane Pomerantz, Nancy Jones, Wendy Goggin, Bonnie Glober, Doug Chavis, Whitney Schmidt, Tony Peluso, Jay Hoffer, Adelaide Few, Sid Alexander, and many others.
Some Chicago cops with whom I interacted before joining the Army deserve my gratitude. Sometimes just shooting the bull with them made a difference. Though they didn’t know it at the time, they undoubtedly inspired me and many others to join the law enforcement/investigative profession.
Officer Frank Serpico, an honest cop from the New York City Police Department, became an idol of mine before I even entered the law enforcement–investigative profession. In 1973, I saw a movie made about his law enforcement career titled Serpico, starring Al Pacino. I watched the movie again about 34 years later when I was fighting internal obstructions and hindrances and trying to conduct an honest investigation that the alleged good guys did not want completed. Much to their dismay, I completed the investigation anyway.
The street smarts I learned and applied to my investigative approaches were mostly acquired by hanging out with some good (and not always good) guys and gals on the South Side of Chicago before joining the Army. Somehow we survived our crazy escapades and went on to live productive lives.
I’m grateful to Ted Williams, the late Major League Baseball Hall of Famer (and last Major Leaguer to hit over .400), for his support and encouragement during one of my first professional writings.
Special thanks to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and its fine staff of professionals (particularly: Dr. Joseph Wells, CFE, CPA; James Ratley, CFE; Dick Carozza, CFE; Laura Hymes, CFE; and Cora Bullock). The ACFE gave me my first opportunities to write about my fraud-fighting and investigative approaches in the ACFE’s Fraud Magazine and in another anti-fraud book. The positive feedback received from readers convinced me to write this book.
The new professionals I’ve begun working with since starting my own company also deserve a special thanks. They include attorneys, paralegals, administrative personnel, business owners, executives and others, and my fellow private investigators. There was a big learning curve going from serving as a federal criminal investigator to a serving as a civilian private investigator and consultant.
Many family members inspired me to join the law enforcement–investigative profession. One of my grandfathers was a persistent and detail-oriented investigative auditor for the state of Illinois. My other grandfather was a brave and daring Chicago fireman who left behind a couple of fireman’s badges after he died (which as a kid I pretended were detective badges). One of my uncles (Cal) proudly served during World War II and later became a metropolitan cop. My older brother (Ed) enlisted during the Vietnam War, became a city cop, earned his master’s degree, and has headed security of large organizations. Once I saw how my older brother made it, I just kind of followed his personal and professional growth road map. Ed has always encouraged me and others to pursue our dreams and goals. He’s a patriotic professional and genuine good guy.
My wife and daughters had to put up with a lot of the hardships that went along with serving in my chosen profession, which included a few moves. (But there are worse places to get transferred to than Orlando, Florida, and Las Vegas, Nevada.) They also had to bear with the transition of my going from being a senior federal agent to starting a new business in West Tennessee as a private investigator, consultant, and trainer. None of that was easy, and I’m sure they have some war stories of their own. My wife, who is also my best friend, has always encouraged me and supported my personal and professional decisions.
Of course, this book would just be words on my laptop computer if not for the great assistance of Sheck Cho, executive editor of this book’s publisher, John Wiley & Sons. His work ethic and professionalism are second to none. Special thanks to Mr. Cho, John Wiley & Sons, and their professional staff including Helen Cho and Natasha Andrews-Noel.
Last and by no means least, I’d like to thank the readers of this book. I hope my shared experiences will benefit you and others for many years to come.
Chapter 1The Successful Investigator
“Some investigators have 20 years of experience; others have one year of experience 20 times.”
–Senior federal agent
War Story 1.1
During the later years of my federal law enforcement career (2006–2008), I was investigating several high-ranking U.S. military generals and other military officers for allegedly applying undue influence on lower-ranking government contracting officials to circumvent the contract award process. As a result of their influence, many government contracts worth several millions of dollars were awarded to favored contractors (including retired military officers’ companies) sometimes at highly inflated prices, and often they were awarded without required competition.
The assigned federal prosecutor was also an officer in the military reserves. During the investigation, the prosecutor surprisingly ordered me to stop conducting interviews, stop writing reports, and stop analyzing other improperly awarded government contracts. My own supervisor, who was also an officer in the military reserves, took things a step further and ordered me to completely close the investigation!
As implied in the preface of this book, I’m a bit of a maverick—especially when it allows for the opportunity for good to triumph over evil. So despite my instructions, I just kept right on investigating, conducting interviews, writing reports, and examining other government contracts. In the end, I obtained evidence indicating that some of the highest-ranking U.S. military generals and other high-profile officers should have been considered for courts martial (military criminal trials). My final draft investigative report, approximately 275 pages, provided clear and detailed descriptions of the investigative results including a required evidence section.
So what happened? My final draft report was altered. (Some might call it “edited,” but there’s a big difference.) Before my report was finalized, critical information was completely removed, including the entire evidence section. The final version of my report was reduced to approximately 250 pages and made to look as if the highest senior military officers (four-star generals) had done nothing that warranted consideration for criminal prosecution. That was in complete contrast to what the evidence indicated and in complete contrast to what I wrote in my draft report!
In addition, in my final draft report I stated that the investigation was not yet complete because more interviews and re-interviews needed to be conducted. That statement was completely removed before the report was finalized. Consequently, the final “approved” report gave the false impression that the investigation was 100 percent complete.
NOTE: Yes, I did notify senior government officials about what transpired, but they failed or refused to respond. As a result, I learned firsthand the meaning of the term “good ole boys’ network.”
The moral of the story is that even the best investigators in the world cannot control the outcome of every investigation. In all probability, most other investigators will never encounter the obstacles, hindrances, and roadblocks imposed on my efforts during and after that investigation. But if conducting investigations is your chosen profession, you’d better be prepared for some occasional shenanigans by others (including the “good guys”) that you will not be able to control. What others do before, during, and after you complete your investigation may very well affect the outcome of the investigation.
The Basics
Before embarking on this unique voyage to learn how to become a more successful investigator, it is important to have a basic understanding of the meaning of those two words and how they relate to each other. Sounds pretty simple, right? I can just about guarantee you that many investigators who have received less-than-perfect scores on their annual job performance ratings would opine that their own definitions of the word “success” often differs greatly from their superiors’ definitions. This chapter elaborates on the meanings of these words: investigator, investigation, and success.
Investigators
Investigators, like other professionals, must have certain characteristics, traits, and skills to be successful at their chosen profession. An investigator must:
Possess integrity (be honest).
Have certain job skills (acquired through training and/or experience).
Have knowledge of many aspects of law (e.g., knowledge of others’ right to privacy, the rules of evidence, and the elements of criminal offenses, etc.).
Be dedicated to the job (willing to go beyond the call of duty).
Be persistent (not willing to give up just because the going gets tough).
Be self-motivated (don’t need someone else telling them what to do or when to do it).
Be resourceful (maximize the use of resources and be cost conscious where possible).
Investigators should also have other skills, including good planning, organizational, and communications skills (oral and written). It also helps to be creative and clever. Many of the skill sets needed to be an effective investigator are obtainable in a classroom or in the field; however, a few of these characteristics (e.g., integrity, dedication, and persistence) often are instilled in some people early in their lives; in others, never at all. I don’t mind saying that the U.S. Army taught me the importance of persistence. The military teaches troops to never give up, no matter what. A persistent investigator is a very valuable commodity.
Having passion for your work is critical to enjoying the job. No matter what your profession, if you enjoy your work, the job really isn’t about the paycheck; it’s about the pursuit and accomplishment of the goal(s). Having passion for catching bad guys, righting wrongs, pursuing justice, and helping others can make it fun to go to work every day. That’s why I say I’ve been lucky; I’ve always gotten to do what I wanted.
I once asked a professional baseball scout what he looked for when evaluating young prospects to be considered for baseball contracts. He replied, “What we look for is speed. We can teach players everything else, but we can’t teach them speed.”
If You Have the PIG, You Have It Made
Along the baseball scout’s lines, in my opinion the three most important characteristics, skills, attributes, or traits that a good investigator (or any other professional) can have include: passion, integrity, and grit (PIG). Grit might be described as the willingness to persevere while pursuing long-term goals despite unfavorable odds, despite the naysayers, and despite obstacles and hindrances. “Passion, integrity, and grit—if you have the PIG, you have it made.”
Obviously a listing of useful characteristics, skills, or traits of a good investigator (especially a fraud investigator) could take several pages to complete. “Street smarts” are invaluable in the investigative field but not usually a requirement to become an investigator (sometimes I think they should be). A fraud investigator’s skill sets should also include being computer literate, logical, and analytical. He or she also needs to be pretty good at math. Perhaps every investigator should possess a strong sense of curiosity. But an investigator does not necessarily have to be good at everything to be effective. Knowing your own limitations as well as having a willingness to learn and improve makes all the difference.
War Story 1.2
When I was a rookie federal agent, my agency required that a few other agents and I take aptitude tests to determine if we would be good candidates to become technical equipment agents for our offices. The tech equipment we’d use would include hidden electronic audio recorders and cameras and other covert and overt gadgets. One of the questions on the examination was: “Are you the type who likes to disassemble a watch to determine how it works?” I truthfully answered, “No!” because I knew I’d never get the watch put back together if I did take it apart. Most of the other questions on the test were similar in nature, and it became obvious to me that I had no business trying to become a tech agent.
I later learned that my answers to the exam questions were irrelevant because the federal investigative agency that I worked for was going to force me to attend the four-week tech training regardless of my final score.
During the first week of tech training at the Federal Academy in Brunswick, Georgia, the instructor explained to our class how electricity worked (think of a scientist wearing a long white coat.) Perhaps some of the other agents in the classroom actually comprehended the material, but I sure didn’t. Later the instructor brought us to a laboratory and instructed us to assemble our own tiny covert microphones using a solder gun and other tiny pieces of electronic stuff. All I made was a mess!
However, I later learned quite a bit in the field when we used brand-new already assembled equipment. As part of our training, we went into a hotel room, installed pinhole cameras, and wired up the room and then monitored everything from the adjacent room. (Yes, we rented the two rooms for training purposes, and no, there were no unsuspecting people in the room we wired up and monitored.) Understanding how the equipment worked or why it worked was beyond my comprehension. (The same is true with the remote control for my television.)
After completing the training and receiving my diploma, I returned to my home office in Memphis and practiced on the job with the available tech equipment. I continued my self-training and use of such equipment in my next office assignments in Orlando and later in Las Vegas. With the additional hands-on experience, I was able to utilize the tech equipment in the field during several undercover operations. That knowledge and expanded use assists me today as a private investigator.
In short, everyone can learn new skills. But there are some jobs that are better suited for others. Once you have a basic understanding of what other professionals in your field do and have done to accomplish their professional objectives, you can become more effective (assuming the others are willing to assist and share information).
I’ve worked with certified public accountants, auditors, and analysts who’ve provided invaluable assistance during fraud investigations. Forensic computer experts and fingerprint and handwriting experts have also made huge contributions in my investigations. Quite honestly, I could never do what those professionals do (and wouldn’t want to if I could). To be a successful investigator, you often will need assistance and/or input from other professionals to help you do your job—or to do your job more efficiently.
Another characteristic needed to become an effective investigator is “concern.” Investigators who have a genuine concern for the victims, complainants, harmed organizations, and their own employers’ or clients’ interests typically will be more motivated to accomplish their investigative objectives. Many of us have seen investigators who carry a case file in their hand but just don’t seem to care whether they solve the case or not. Others seem to investigate with a sense of urgency like there is no tomorrow. The latter investigators normally have the respect of their peers and others and regularly accomplish more.
While conducting investigations, an investigator must also keep an open mind and remain objective. A tragic mistake is to have fixed or preconceived notions (which often results in faulty conclusions) about the results of the investigation before it’s been completed. (It’s okay to have hunches.) Over the years, I’ve seen some investigators set out to obtain only that information and evidence that fits their original hypotheses, objectives, or agenda. Some investigators go so far as to document only information that meets their objectives. Two causes of reaching faulty conclusions are confirmation biases and availability heuristics.
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias occurs when people assign more value to information that goes along with their own belief or hypotheses. When an investigator or fraud fighter consciously or subconsciously has this bias, the consequences can be many including: wrongly charged individuals, actual criminals not being charged, complaints being wrongly dismissed, and so on.
Availability Heuristic
An availability heuristic occurs when somone consciously or subconsciously overvalues information that is right in front of them. An example might be when an investigator makes a conclusion about a suspect based on information one person “reported,” and the investigator assumes it “must” be true. Failing to thoroughly investigate based on this mental shortcut could cause the wrong conclusion to be made.
I have seen reputable investigators whose agencies are well known and well respected intentionally omit factual information from reports simply because the information did not fit what they wanted to prove. In my opinion, that’s how innocent people end up in prison! Over the years, I came to my own conclusion that some of these one-sided investigators were trained to conduct investigations in that manner because that’s what was/is expected of them. In the real world, some “professionals” are more concerned about putting points on their own personal scoreboard, getting notches on their belts, or getting promoted than pursuing justice and/or establishing the truth.
War Story 1.3
As a private investigator and consultant, I was once asked to review a police department’s voluminous policies and procedures and then review the details of an incident that resulted in an arrest and a civilian’s being injured. The injured party had a long history of previous arrests. My natural instinct was to lean toward taking the police officers’ side, but I refrained from taking that position during my review. What I found were (in my opinion) clear violations of the police department’s policies and procedures as well as critical omissions in official police reports. In short, from my viewpoint, it looked like a cover-up.
Next I reviewed the reported internal affairs inquiry into the complaint and found that all of the potential witnesses were not interviewed and that those interviews that were conducted were completed in such a way as to favor the police officers. Some of the questions asked actually included suggested answers; no logical follow-up questions were asked; and way too many closed-end (yes or no) questions were asked. In short, if you are going to conduct an investigation, it should be conducted objectively, thoroughly, and completely.
Many organizations and agencies have their own written codes of conduct, codes of ethics, and/or core values. The ones I have seen have always been well thought out and well written. Some are longer than the Ten Commandments, and some are as short as a campaign slogan. The advantage of having lengthy codes is that they can cover just about everything. The disadvantage is nobody can remember them. The advantage of having a short code is that people will remember it; the disadvantage is that it probably won’t cover everything. In my opinion, if investigators just try to do what honest people expect of them (or just do what’s right), things will usually take care of themselves.
Investigation
Most of the sources I checked to obtain a definition for the word “investigation” utilize some of the same words or phrases, including: detailed, systematic examination; fact-finding; truth searching and/or carefully looking for something hidden or previously unknown.
All of the words combined would seem to adequately describe what an investigation means. However, it’s probably worth noting that in addition to sometimes attempting to find evidence that supports the allegation/hypothesis that a wrong did occur or that a particular person(s) or suspect(s) committed the wrong, it just as important attempt to search for evidence that supports that perhaps the “wrong” never occurred or that a particular person (the suspect) did not commit the wrong.
An objective investigation should strive to learn all the facts, not just the ones that support a preconceived notion. An exception, of course, would be an investigation on behalf of a defendant where the sole purpose might be to disprove the prosecutor’s or plaintiff’s case. A thorough, complete, and well-documented investigation usually (maybe I should say often) will overwhelmingly prove if wrongdoing did or did not occur and who did it or who did not do it.
War Story 1.4
When I was a senior federal agent, a high-ranking federal prosecutor once told me, “The more you write in your reports, the more you have to defend in court.” The prosecutor wanted me to write short and generic reports to describe my investigative activity. Another prosecutor once instructed me to stop taking notes during our meetings out of concern that the defense counsel would be able to obtain my notes during discovery. For those attorneys (who coincidentally worked in the same office with each other), it was all about winning (or not losing) in court. Other attorneys, from that very same prosecutors’ office, were later chastised by judges and the media for wrongfully withholding case information from defense attorneys on other cases.
TIP: Be careful you don’t fall into ethical traps set by others that could cause you to swallow your integrity. You’ll sleep better if you do the right thing.
Success
Everyone has their own definition of the word “success.” Various sources might describe success as obtaining a favorable or desired outcome. Most would probably agree that the opposite of success means “failure.”
Here are two questions to ponder:
Is a “successful” investigator one that does not fail?
If so, what does “failure” mean in an investigation?
Before reading further, I suggest that you take a few moments and consider how you think the words “success” and “failure” pertain to an investigator and to an investigation.
War Story 1.5
After serving seven years in the U.S. Army, I became a candidate to be hired as a police officer by a metropolitan police department. As part of the selection process, I was interviewed by a panel of senior police officers (sergeants and lieutenants). An older lieutenant asked me a question, but he spoke as if he had marbles in his mouth and I couldn’t understand him. I asked the lieutenant to repeat himself three times before figuring out what he was asking. His question was “How does fear play a role in police work?”
Based on my prior military police experience, I provided a response with confidence and ensured I made eye contact with all the members of the panel while speaking. I also ended my response with a half smile and added, “I’m not sure that completely answers your question, but I hope it does.”
The lieutenant snarled, leaned forward, and stared at me in silence. Then he said something I wasn’t expecting. He repeated the question, “How does fear play a role in police work?”
Because he repeated the same question, I assumed that he did not like my first answer. But since my initial response was what I believed, I just reiterated my earlier comments. (I later learned that part of the evaluators’ critiques included determining whether the candidates stood by their responses when challenged.)
Later in my career, I realized that the lieutenant’s question was probably the most important one that could ever be asked of a law enforcement officer. And the officer’s response is even more important. If you can’t overcome fear, you cannot become an effective law enforcement officer—period! The same is true of investigators or fraud fighters (even if they do not put their lives on the line).
An investigator’s job is to learn the truth and report the truth. Sometimes the truth is not what some people want to hear. As far as I’m concerned, that’s their problem. As an investigator, sometimes you will have to make moral decisions as to how you will conduct your investigation and how you will report facts. I mention this because it’s better to think about what you would do before you are put into a potentially compromising situation.
By the way, I did get selected to be a police officer for that metropolitan police department. After graduating from the two-month police academy, I reported for my first midnight shift and saw that same snarling lieutenant standing in the front of the briefing room at the podium for roll call. One of the veteran patrol officers walked up behind me and whispered, “The lieutenant at the podium is our shift commander. Whatever you do, don’t ask him to repeat himself; it really ticks him off.” (Oops!) I later learned firsthand that particular lieutenant was one of the most effective patrol supervisors a city could ask for. He took crime fighting seriously and he made sure we did too.
After reading the preceding material, it should be obvious that much thought needs to be given to how an investigator (and an investigator’s supervisor) determines if an investigator is successful. If investigators overlook some things that they should not have, that certainly would not be a good thing. If investigators unintentionally made vital reporting errors or forgot to interview key witnesses, those are indicators of poor-quality work. But investigators who do their jobs to the best of their ability, seek assistance when needed, report facts, and never omit critical information have generally done all that most can expect of them.
Often the outcome of an investigation depends on who receives the information (the decision maker). For example, an investigator can prove wrongdoing of an employee, but the business owner might give the employee a slap on the hand or a verbal warning. A prosecuting attorney might receive an airtight case and then blow it when presenting the facts at trial (that does not happen very often). Worse yet, the investigator might provide a solid case and the prosecutor, for one reason or another, may decline to accept the case for prosecution. A judge or jury might determine that the evidence presented does not prove the case. Those types of outcomes usually cannot be controlled by an investigator.
A few other things can affect the outcome of an investigation. Factually, sometimes victims, complainants, and witnesses lie or are mistaken. In those cases, the matters being investigated may not have ever happened or didn’t happen as reported. Also, for some cases, there just isn’t enough information to complete the investigation. With limited resources, investigators and their supervisors have to prioritize how investigators spend their time. Case overload sometimes causes investigators to almost work like a MASH unit and do the best they can as quickly as they can. Realistically, every single case cannot be solved. In short, when investigations do not result in convictions, that does not necessarily mean the investigators did not do their jobs as well as they could.
Based on this information, a successful investigator might be described as a well-trained, persistent, and ethical person who conducts honest, objective, detailed, systematic examinations, inquiries, and investigations (as permitted by law); obtains assistance where needed while striving to identify and report facts and the truth. The investigator should perform those actions to the best of his or her ability while maximizing the use of available resources and minimizing time and other expenditures. At the same time, the investigator still should do his or her best to serve the overall objectives of the employer or client and/or the well-being of those sworn to protect.
So if proving that bad guys committed some violations is a good thing, wouldn’t it be even better to identify what other violations those same individuals perpetrated? And wouldn’t it be even better to identify others who completed similar acts of wrongdoing? Before I demonstrate how to do that, the next chapter touches on the case initiation decision process.
Chapter 2Case Initiation
“I will not prosecute that individual because the dollar loss is not high enough.”
—Government prosecutor
After a preliminary (short-term) inquiry/investigation is completed, a decision must be made to open or not to open an official (longer-term) investigation. Sometimes matters can be referred to other investigative agencies/officials for their own joint or sole consideration. In large organizations, the chief of investigations (or similar title) or subordinates often make case initiation decisions. Usually, but not always, those decision makers were selected to serve in those positions because they previously demonstrated their success on the job over an extended period of time. Often those individuals have served within the same or similar organization for several years. However, it has been proven all too often that some of those decision makers really don’t belong in those positions.
War Story 2.1
During my 30-plus years in law enforcement, I worked for some of the best and most dedicated supervisors on the planet. I also worked for some of the worst and most pathetic supervisors, some of whom in my opinion couldn’t find feces in a diarrhea factory.
The good supervisors had some common characteristics: They knew their jobs and the investigators’ jobs very well; knew how to manage caseloads, time, and resources; were good planners; cared about the welfare of their subordinates; disciplined employees as needed and rewarded employees’ good work; understood the importance of teamwork and morale; and were dedicated to the cause.
Although some of the bad supervisors I worked for had their own unique quirks, many shared common characteristics. For example, they:
Possessed none or few of the characteristics just described.
Seemed to care more about their next performance evaluation or promotion than anything else.
Didn’t want to work any harder than they had to.
Watched the clock to ensure lower-ranking employees always showed up on time (even if the employee worked 18 hours the previous day) and ensured the employees didn’t take extended lunch breaks or leave work early (even when employees worked excess amounts of uncompensated overtime).
Seldom gave recognition for outstanding performance but always pointed out where mistakes were made.
Used red ink pens to make corrections on paper reports (on electronic reports they over utilized Microsoft Office’s “Tracking” and “Comments”).
Religiously measured the side margins of hard-copy reports and counted the number of spaces between periods in sentences.
Seldom (if ever) provided any useful suggestions to improve investigative progress.
Frequently inspected vehicles for cleanliness.
Were anal about ensuring that time sheets, vehicle mileage logs, and administrative reports were turned in early or first thing in the morning at the beginning of each month.
Were physically unfit.
Were extremely well polished in their appearance.
Kissed the rears of senior officials from other organizations and anyone who outranked them.
Never argued or disagreed with their superiors.
Failed to support their employees when the going got tough.
Having served in the public and private sector as a supervisor, senior investigator, and low man on the totem pole, I understand that many factors have to be considered before decisions are made to initiate official investigations. Some of those factors are:
Jurisdiction, venue, and purview
Believability, reliability, or credibility of the source of the information or complaint
Amount of the dollar loss
Seriousness of the matter (harm done)
Current case inventory size
Availability of investigative resources (internal and external)
Funding/finances
Investigators’ desires to conduct the investigation(s)
Organization’s investigative priorities
Projected remedy or outcome (criminal, civil, or administrative)
Prosecutor’s prerogative (track record of accepting/declining certain types of cases)
Media or public’s interests (or pressures)
Political interests (or pressures)
Jurisdiction, Venue, and Purview
The term “jurisdiction” refers to the geographical area where a specific law enforcement organization has power and authority to enforce laws. For example, an Illinois State Trooper would be out of her jurisdiction if she set up a speed trap in Indiana.
“Venue” refers to the location where a court case might get heard. For example, a single murder committed in Texas ordinarily is not tried in New Mexico or some other state.
“Purview” refers to what and where an agency, organization, or section is responsible for handling or investigating certain matters. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has purview on kidnapping and bank robbery cases. No matter where those cases occur in the United States, the FBI investigates. But other investigators and/or law enforcement officers often assist (with some restrictions) the FBI in those (and other) investigations.
Most crimes on a military installation are investigated by members of the military organizations’ own investigative agencies—the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Criminal Investigations Division (CID), Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), or Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)—or their subordinate investigative agencies, Military Police Investigations (MPI) or Air Force Security Forces. Sometimes investigations can be conducted jointly with other agencies or organizations. Corporate internal investigations often are conducted by the entity’s own internal investigators. Sometimes private investigators (PIs) are called in to conduct independent investigations.
Before initiating an investigation, consideration must be given to where the offense occurred and where the alleged wrongdoer resides (or where a suspect company is physically located). This is important because in a federal case, if the wrongdoing occurred in the same area where the suspect lives, the investigative results often (but not always) will need to be referred to the prosecuting office in the same geographical area where the suspect lives or where the suspect company is physically located.
For example, if a hospital in Nevada allegedly submitted false insurance claims to an insurance company in Tennessee, odds are a federal investigation eventually would have to be presented to a prosecutor(s) in Nevada. Therefore, under this scenario, it would be more practical and economical for the case to be assigned to an investigator(s) in Nevada. Also, most (but not all) of the witnesses to be interviewed and individual suspects likely would be located in Nevada. Therefore, most often the investigation would be conducted most efficiently by investigator(s) in the same area where the suspect resides—if that’s where the offense took place. In the above example, if the agency did not have an office in Nevada, the office that covers that state would investigate.
War Story 2.2
When I was a federal agent working Las Vegas, Nevada, I was notified about a man from Los Angeles, California, who was arrested by the local police in a small town in Georgia (near Atlanta) for possessing and utilizing a fake California driver’s license and four counterfeit credit cards—including one counterfeit credit card issued for business purposes to a member of my organization. The same fake name was printed on all the counterfeit credit cards and fake driver’s license.
The following day, I was notified about the arrest of another man from Los Angeles, but this one was arrested by the local police in Las Vegas, for possessing and utilizing a fake California driver’s license and four counterfeit credit cards—including one counterfeit credit card issued to another member of my organization for business purposes. The same fake name was used on all the credit cards and driver’s license (but it was different name than the fake name used in Georgia).
