This publication is authored by and reflects the views and opinions of PT Integrity Indonesia. More information about PT Integrity Indonesia is available at www.integrity-indonesia.com.

One morning in a corporate meeting room, the tension was almost tangible. An employee sat across from two interviewers. There were no raised voices, no accusations, only questions delivered calmly yet with clear direction. Each answer was listened to intently, every shift in posture noted, and small details double-checked. This was one form of an investigative interview, a professional interviewing method that often serves as the key to untangling the complexities of corporate fraud and internal misconduct cases.

In the business world, moments like these happen more often than people realize. Investigative interviews are not limited to law enforcement, they are widely used by companies to uncover suspected internal violations, conflicts of interest, and fraudulent practices that can quietly erode both reputation and revenue.

More Than Just Asking Questions

Many assume that an investigative interview is simply another word for interrogation, but the two are different. Interrogations are typically conducted by law enforcement and may be confrontational, whereas in a business context, investigative interviews are conducted with professionalism, structure, with the aim of gathering information objectively.

“Why professional? Because in an investigative interview, we uphold the rights of the interviewee. They have the right to feel at ease, they may drink, take a restroom break, and if they feel tired, they can pause. This is the difference between an investigative interview and an interrogation,” explained one of the seasoned Investigators at PT Integrity Indonesia.

“The process is also highly systematic because there is a planning stage, including subject profiling, drafting questions, and determining the execution strategy. We even consider small details such as the place of interview, sitting arrangement, the order of subjects to be interviewed and whether the interview will be conducted one on one or two on one,” he continued.

Thorough planning is crucial. Before a single question is asked, interviewers must understand the context of the case, identify witnesses or related parties, and map out possible information pathways. In many cases, interviews open unexpected doors, revealing people and facts that were never on the original list.

Reading Beyond Words

In an investigative interview, the spoken answer is just one layer of information. Tone of voice, pauses, body language, and even fleeting microexpressions can hold valuable clues. “The consistency of answers and non verbal cues are often important indicators for assessing honesty,” he said.

The greatest challenge comes when there is little initial information or when the case is already ‘burnt', a term of situation when witnesses or subjects have already been interviewed by another party such as the company’s internal team and have become defensive. In such situations, the skill of building rapport becomes crucial. Questions must be open ended and free of an accusatory tone.

The PEACE method (Planning, Engage & Explain, Account, Clarify & Challenge, Evaluation) is often used as a framework. From building initial communication to final evaluation, each stage is designed to ensure the interview is effective, ethical, and yields information that can be accounted for.

Revealing More Than Expected

One of the strengths of an investigative interview is its ability to uncover unexpected information. In a case involving suspected misuse of company funds, the initial interview focused on one violation. However, from the statements obtained, another practice emerged: manipulation of leave entitlements by several employees. This finding never appeared in documents or internal reports but became important for management to take corrective action.

For companies, there are several advantages to having an investigative interview conducted by a third party. First, the results are more objective because they are carried out by a neutral party, avoiding conflicts of interest.

“Often, our team finds there is a close relationship, for example, a subject from the HR department being friendly with purchasing, or the legal department with sales, making them reluctant to provide statements if the investigation is conducted internally,” he noted.

Second, seasoned interviewers possess trained analytical skills and intuition, especially when dealing with subjects who hold high positions or wield significant influence. “Sometimes the ‘posture’ of an internal interviewer is outweighed by the subject, especially if they are senior executives. This is where neutrality, expertise, and experience from professional interviewers are essential,” he added.

Beyond resolving current issues, investigative interviews also help prevent future losses. By uncovering patterns, motives, and relationships between parties, companies can improve systems, strengthen policies, and build a stronger culture of integrity.