1
7-1 Discussion: Use of Deception by the Interviewer in Fraud Interviews
Tenisha Long
Southern New Hampshire University
2
Using deception or misleading tactics in fraud interviews, in my opinion, is an ethical gray
area that calls for an in-depth review. While it is generally undesirable to use misleading strategies
in interviews, there are some circumstances in which certain forms of deceit may be justified, as
long as they are within legal and ethical limitations. The important issue is that any sort of deceit
does not violate discrimination laws or infringe on interviewee's rights.
Limited deception in fraud interviews can be a beneficial method for acquiring evidence.
An interviewer may encourage a suspect to provide more honest information if the entire
circumstances of the investigation are not disclosed. When dealing with persons involved in
fraudulent operations, this method can be beneficial because they may be less willing to comply if
they are aware of the true basis of the investigation.
Deception can also be used to safeguard sensitive information. Interviewers may employ
deceit to protect the integrity of the investigation when revealing the scope of the investigation
could jeopardize sensitive data (Kizil et al., 2021). Furthermore, one may claim that deceit might
aid in the balance of power in interviews. It can ensure that the interviewee does not attempt to
influence or hinder the investigation, which is especially important when dealing with seasoned
fraudsters.
However, there are substantial concerns about the use of deception in fraud interviews.
First it poses ethical concerns. Deception is typically regarded as dishonest and unethical, with the
ability to undermine trust and the integrity of the interview as well as the judicial system as a
whole. Another important source of concern is the possibility of fake confessions. Interviewees
who believe they are already being investigated or face serious penalties may admit to a crime they
did not commit, resulting in erroneous convictions. Legal issues are also involved. In some areas,
deceptive methods are prohibited, and evidence gathered through such means may be inadmissible
3
in court (Ho et al., 2021). Furthermore, the misuse or overuse of deceit can affect law enforcement
agencies' reputation and credibility, making it more difficult to collaborate with witnesses and earn
public trust.
In conclusion, in my honest opinion, the propriety of utilizing deception in fraud interviews
is determined by a number of factors, including the nature of the investigation, the legal
environment, and the interviewing organization's ethical standards. If deception is an option, it
should be used with caution, transparency, and within the confines of the law, with the primary
purpose of revealing the truth while protecting the interviewee's rights. When considering whether
to utilize deception in fraud investigations, it is critical to weigh the potential benefits against
ethical and legal considerations.
4
References
Kizil, C., Muzır, E., & Yılmaz, V. (2021). Auditing Techniques to Minimize Accounting Related
Fraud and Errors: A Qualitative Analysis with the Interview Method. Emerging Markets
Journal (EMAJ), University of Pittsburgh Press (USA), 11(1), 95-103.
Ho, J. L., Powell, D. M., & Stanley, D. J. (2021). The relation between deceptive impression
management and employment interview ratings: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 53(2), 164.