Often situations arise in the relationship of employer and employee, when the employer suspects an employee of fraud or theft. Investigating of these allegations is the most popular and effective way of solving this issue.
To check the version of the embezzlement, there are following initial actions. This can be cut and inspection records by money and wealth, and their comparison with the audit materials; questioning and a search of the suspects; the seizure of deposits and assets with a view to confiscation and compensation for damages. It is also possible to interrogate workers accounting auditors as witnesses. Additional or repeat revision (if necessary) and inspection work may be useful. As a result, an examination is possible (“Loss Management”, n. d.)
Diagnosis of the organization is the first investigation step (Nilsson, 2009). It contains of an analysis of the organizational structure, regulations, analysis of operating and financial performance, the analysis of the technological cycle of the organization, and the survey or interviewing employees depending on the characteristics of the organization (non-transparent areas).The next step is identification and recording of the weak places in the organization where there is a likelihood of embezzlement. Diagnosis of staff is the third step. It is an evaluation of criminal features, professional-level evaluation, and an assessment of personal qualities in accordance with the job status and the weak points in the organization.
Formation of reference is the fourth step. The possibility of committing misconduct in the organization and the projected economic losses should be assessed. It includes the recommendations to change the current situation (organizational structure, job descriptions, business process cycle, rotating or turning the staff), depending on the results of examination (Nilsson, 2009). The last step is provision of the examination results to the owner of the organization.
The interviews are the most important part of the investigation process. In its course it should be tailored to suit individual groups of questioning witnesses (Lamoureaux, n. d.). The first group is persons that are making the allegations of theft. Cases of interest and bad faith for a variety of reasons could be from their side. This requires an appropriate review of their testimony. The second group is persons who by their official position may be responsible for condoning theft. In their interview should be specified readings that should be documented and thoroughly checked. The third group is financially responsible and other persons responsible for the loss, excess, violations. Carefully locking testimony should be disaggregated and then check them. The fourth group is persons who by their official position come into a contact with those who committed the theft, but may not be aware of it, although they know some facts that are relevant to the crime. They are drivers, porters, cleaners, ordinary salespeople. During the interviews they must be convinced that the law protects them.
The success of the interview is based on individual approach to the interviewee. Pattern is not allowed here. In the simplest cases, an interview plan can be a list of issues to be clarified (Lamoureaux, …