Conducting investigations in a post-pandemic world

When we talk about conducting investigations post-pandemic, technology is invariably part of the conversation. Pre-pandemic, momentum was already building to use technology to create new efficiencies in the investigative process. This was driven by broader corporate trends such as the move to cloud hosting solutions for data, which was already growing at a rate of 10-20% per year. However, the exponential growth in data, diversity of data types and new platforms and devices were already forcing investigators to consider how technology could help them grapple with this new, and sometimes overwhelming, data environment.

The pandemic acceleration

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and overnight transition to remote working in March 2020, the case for technology-enabled investigations, ranging from remote interviewing to investigators working on the same data across multiple locations, put technology centre stage. While for many investigative teams this transition was an uncertain one, the new methods and the cost and time efficiencies were valuable new tools. Two key factors are driving today’s hybrid investigations environment.

1. Adapting working practices to suit a remote environment. Remote collection is something that was done before the pandemic, but its adoption and professionalisation have greatly improved post-pandemic. Companies have put better procedures in place to enable remote collections, and regulators have provided guidance on acceptable practices. Key elements for success include, establishing clear lines of communications and definition of roles; outlining clear responsibilities of all the stakeholders involved, from your legal advisors to your forensic specialists, or in-house teams; and making sure everyone involved knows how data collection should be performed and recorded through Chain of Custody forms and further documentation.
   
   
2. Technological solutions for data review. There are various platforms that enable secure data review from anywhere in the world, while providing innovative ways to analyse content and gain insight from massive amounts of data quickly. One of the ways technology can help investigations is through visualization tools to display complex information and insights in an intuitive way. Whether mapping stakeholder relationships as part of an email review or displaying the results of your financial analysis, this has been a game changer in the field of investigations.

Remote, in-person, hybrid?

But before you decide whether to take a remote approach in investigations, there are a few key questions you should have in mind.

1. Is your investigation into financial or non-financial misconduct? In the former, a key source of evidence is going to be any financial data you can access within your organization and, assuming that that data is available in a digital format and can be accessed remotely, that is going to cover a big part of your investigation. If it is the latter, the situation becomes more complex and could cover HR-related allegations like sexual harassment or bullying. While there's still value in reviewing electronic data, like emails or other electronic correspondence, your main source of evidence would likely be the interviews you're going to conduct. Given the sensitivities of the subject matter involved and the need to preserve strict confidentiality, there is a strong argument that these interviews should be conducted in person.
   
   
2. Where will your investigation take place? A key consideration not only from a legal standpoint on data protection requirements, but that also has practical implications. It’s important to ascertain if you have the bandwidth and the network connection to transfer large quantities of data and conduct interviews remotely.
   
   
3. What is the expected timeline of the investigation? Remote investigations take a lot longer than on-site investigations. This is partly due to the difficulties that come with coordinating and organizing the work as an investigation team. There are also communication challenges due to lack of responsiveness and sense of responsibility when you try to deal with people remotely, as opposed to meeting them in person.

Remote vs. In person

Most investigators will agree that interviews are the most challenging thing to do remotely. There are issues around confidentiality; for instance, you cannot be sure there isn’t an undisclosed person present in the room, either recording the interview or influencing the interviewee.

It is not ideal to only interview someone remotely in an investigation. Body language will be more difficult to read when assessing the credibility of an interviewee and speaking in person helps to build rapport.

Striking a balance

When you first start planning your investigation put together your interview schedule and use it as your guide for which parties would suit a remote interview, and which would benefit from face-to-face. It is typical to divide your interviewees into three groups: 

Out of these three groups, the one that’s most suited to remote interviews will be group three. Whereas for the other two groups, and particularly when interviewing the main suspect, or your whistle-blower (group one), you should consider conducting those on-site, if possible.

Remote investigations: Pointers for success

If you do decide to investigate remotely, there are some key measures you should put in place from day one.