Investigator Two, however, can have some assurance that the alleged acts did not take place, if no evidence appears in support of his test assumptions. Investigator One, after inter-viewing a dozen witnesses, did not know if bribes had been paid or not, only that he could not prove it. This approach also enables one to prove, to a certain extent, that a suspected act did not occur.
If not, the investigator may amend his theory, e.g., company C is paying official A, and try again. The Case Theory approach generates the investigative plan (see if a, b or c occurred) and if the theory is correct, evidence of guilt. Investigator Two uses his hypothesis to organize the investigation, i.e., looks for evidence to confirm or rebut the theory (initially, this evidence is often the “red flags” of the suspected offense.) Display sudden new wealth or have unexplained income.Bend or break the rules to award contract to Company A.Makes assumptions which can be used to test the theory – e.g., if the allegations are true, official B would be expected to:.Creates a simple, initial hypothesis or theory, e.g., company A is paying kickbacks to government official B for government work.He analyzes the available data – the details of the allegations.Investigator Two pursues the same case, using the Case Theory approach: He has assembled a thick file and an impressive command of the contracts, but can prove nothing. The investigator does not know what else to do. He confronts the suspect, who denies any wrongdoing. He subpoenas the contract files and whatever else he can think of but sees no smoking gun as he flips through them (this is even less unusual). He asks a dozen witnesses if they have any knowledge of payoffs none do (this is not unusual). He pursues the case with no case theory or investigative plan. Investigator One receives anonymous allegations of corruption in the award of government contracts. Refine and amend it until reasonably certain conclusions can be drawn.Įxpressed somewhat differently, the approach begins with an informed assumption or guess, based on the available evidence, of what the investigator thinks may have happened, which is then used to generate an investigative plan to test – prove or disprove – the assumption.Analyze the available data to create an hypothesis.It is similar to the scientific method of experimentation, and involves the following steps:
The Case Theory approach to complex investigations is second nature to most investigators, at least the successful ones, but is misunderstood or neglected by others, with disastrous results. It is essential that every investigator or prosecutor develop and follow a “theory of the case” when investigating complex corruption and fraud offenses. Use the “Case Theory” approach to investigations Development organizations, can, however, expand their access to evidence by referring cases to law enforcement agencies for assistance, as discussed below. The steps below apply to administrative investigations by international development agencies that lack law enforcement powers to compel evidence from third parties by subpoena or otherwise.
0 kommentar(er)
