Is this what you look like when it comes to preparing investigation reports? Writing investigation reports doesn’t have to be daunting. A standardized reporting structure improves the consistency of reports amongst investigators. Standardized reporting provides investigators with a reporting format to follow and reduces the time spent preparing investigation reports. This information is all fine and dandy, however, a question we frequently receive is, what information do I actually need to put in an investigation report?

 Here is our answer to that question:

1. Information to Identify the Case:

Begin the report with case specific information that identifies the case the report is related to. Include information such as the investigator’s name, case number, the date the case was entered and the date it was assigned to the investigator.

2. Referral Source:

The next section should include the complainant’s information. The complainant’s work phone number, e-mail, employee number, office location, department and job title help identify the person lodging the complaint.

3. Allegation Details:

Harassment, discrimination, retaliation — what type of allegation is under investigation? In this section, be sure to include as much detail as possible about the initial complaint.

• Identify the type of case.
• Who the alleged victim is- may or may not be the same person as the complainant.
• How the complaint was received- hotline, face-to-face, web form, etc.
• Allegation details- what happened, where, when and any other information provided in the initial complaint.

4. Information About the Subject:

The information required for this section of the report is similar to that of the “Referral Source” section. However, it’s the subject’s (the accused person’s) information being documented this time. Include their name, e-mail, work phone number, office location, department and job title.

5. Investigation Scope/ Purpose:

Include a statement that describes the mission and objectives of the investigation. Answer the question “what is the investigation trying to prove?”.

6. Case Notes:

The case notes section should include an overview of the tasks assigned and action taken throughout the investigation. Be sure to include a brief description of the task, steps taken to complete it, who completed the task and when.

7. Interview Summaries:

List the investigation interviews that took place throughout the investigation. Make sure the list is in chronological order, beginning with the first interview, ending with the last. Summary details are short and sweet, outlining:

• Name of the interviewer- also include the names of any other people who sat in on the interview.
• Name of the person interviewed and their role in the investigation- complainant, subject, witness.
• Interview location.
• Date of interview.

In this section of the report, there’s no need to go into detail about the events of the investigation- that’s what the next section is for!

8. Interview Reports:

Interview reports are brief summaries of each of the investigation interviews. In addition to the information in the above section, this part elaborates on the investigation interview to include:

• Credibility Assessment- Certain factors will determine the credibility of an interviewee’s statements. We cover the topic of determining credibility in our post “Investigation Interview Questions to Determine Credibility“. This section of the report should list any indicators that contribute to the belief that the interviewee is or isn’t a credible source.
• Investigator Notes- Summarize the introduction, incident overview and conclusion of each interview. In the introduction, outline the explanation of the interviewer’s role in the investigation, the purpose for the interview, efforts to maintain confidentiality and retaliation protections. The incident overview section should include the interviewee’s description of events related to the incident, whether or not they are aware of any witnesses, where/when the incident occurred and any background information linking the involved parties. Notes to be made about the interview conclusion should include thanking the interviewee, reiteration of confidentiality concepts, review of statements made and interviewee singing of investigator notes.

9. List of Evidence:

As simple as it sounds- list the evidence collected during the investigation. For the sake of the investigation report, include information such as:

•  Type of evidence collected- interview, video, photo, audio tape, e-mail, etc.
• Name of person who presented the evidence, as well as their role in the investigation.
• Date the evidence was collected.
• Location of the evidence.

10. Recommendations:

Conclude the report with recommendations. After reviewing all of the investigation materials, what type of action should be taken? Does evidence support the violation of workplace policies? Make sure recommendations are backed up by the consequences outlined in the company code of conduct or other policies governing employee behaviour in the workplace. Include a plan of action, identifying next steps in taking corrective action.

Reporting With a Case Management System

Case management solutions simplify the investigation reporting process, creating reports with the click of a button. Initially, a report template needs to be developed, outlining the sections of the report. Information from the investigation is pulled from the case file, automatically filling in each of the sections in the report. The report is then ready for export, with the investigator choosing the desired format for the report (PDF, MS Word document, etc.).

The $1.6 billion fine handed down to Siemens in 2008 was much more than a record breaking fine, it was a lesson for other companies to learn from. Prior to the bribery scandal, Siemens had an ethics and compliance program in place, however, there was a missing link between leadership and the enforcement of the program. The company’s cooperation during the SEC investigation lead to a reduced penalty, but also gave way to a complete re-design of the company’s internal ethics and compliance controls. There are many lessons learned from the Siemens charges, the reaction to the investigation and the actions taken by Siemens to position the company as an ethics and compliance leader in the post-scandal era.

Bribery Investigation

An amnesty plan had been worked out with Siemens, as employees willing to come forward with information pertaining to the bribery scandal and identifying key players, would be free from prosecution. In a report from the Wall Street Journal, the amnesty program was offered to all Siemens employees (110 of which came forward with information), with the exception of the 300 employees who made up the company’s top executive team. One particular employee who provided inside information was indicted employee Reinhard Siekaczek. He reported that he managed an annual budget worth $40-50 million, which was considered to be a “bribery budget”. As reported in the New York Times article “At Siemens, Bribery Was Just a Line Item,” salepersons and managers within the company used this money- “slush fund”,  to maintain relations with corrupt government officials.

The level of cooperation in the investigation significantly reduced the cost of the settlement with the SEC. In comparison to other companies hit with scandals, Siemens responded quickly to put measures in place to detect and prevent future acts of bribery within the company. In the New York Times article “At Siemens, Bribery Was Just a Line Item,” they state Siemens was provided with additional leniency, only having to plead to accounting violations, “because pleading to bribery violations would have barred Siemens from bidding on government contracts in the United States.”

In the Ethisphere article “Prepared Remarks to Compliance Week 2010- 5th Annual Conference for Corporate Financial, Legal, Risk, Audit & Compliance Officers,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer states:

“In the end, the benefits Siemens received through its cooperation, even in the absence of a voluntary disclosure, were plain – the $450 million fine that was paid to the Justice Department, although quite substantial, was a far cry from the advisory range of $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion called for in the Sentencing Guidelines. Put another way, Siemens received a penalty that was 67 to 84% less than what it otherwise could have faced had it not provided extraordinary cooperation and carried out such extensive remediation.”

Ethical Recovery

An investigation was launched into the bribery scandal in 2006 and was completed in 2008. The cooperation exhibited by employees at Siemens allowed the investigation to be conducted in less time than originally predicted. Rather than replacing former executives with individuals from inside the company, Siemens filled the roles of major positions with outsiders- which was probably for the best. In 2007, Peter Solmssen was brought into to clean up the ethics and compliance disaster at Siemens.  Also in 2007, Siemens named Peter Löscher as the company’s new CEO.

Siemens has worked to improve their corporate reputation by ensuring that compliance is integrated into the furthest reaching corners of their business. Siemens hired Michael Hershman, of Transparency International, to help build a compliance and anti-corruption policy and training program. Similar to the actions taken by Ed Breen at Tyco, Löscher replaced many of the company’s top executives to start fresh. In most companies the ethics and compliance department remains fairly small, however, Siemens was determined to put their words into actions and created an ethics and compliance department consisting of 600 employees- one of the largest to date.

Since the Settlement, Siemens has divided the company into three divisions in order to clarify reporting lines and increase responsibility. In the New York Times article “Siemens’s Prosperity Doesn’t Obscure Bribery Scandal,” they discuss the reasoning behind the division:

“Mr. Löscher also put the leaders of those three sectors onto the central managing board in Munich. That puts an end to a system in which a leader of a major business, like power generating, had his own managing board and reported to Munich headquarters without being based there. Siemens officials say the old way allowed corruption to spread and inhibited accountability.”

Siemens has developed a training program, with employees at various levels receiving training in regards to issues faced based on employee role. The format and frequency of training also varies depending on level within the organization. On the Siemens corporate website, they communicate that training includes topics such as foreign laws and corruption risks. Employees are now required to sign a statement after reviewing the company’s code of conduct, in order to communicate their commitment and understanding of the code.

Here is a link to a slide deck I came across from a presentation prepared by Siemens titled “Compliance Program at Siemens,” presented at Strengthening Integrity In Private Sector Organized by UNDP, MENA-OECD. The slides contain specific information related to the ethics and compliance program currently in place at Siemens.

FBI Uses Terror-Probe Tactics on Fraud- Wall Street Journal

Members of the FBI in New York have been employing terrorist hunting techniques to catch white-collar criminals. Due to growing speculation and a lack of trust for businesses on Wall Street, these techniques are used to gain a stronger grasp on marketplace crimes. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, FBI Special Agent-in-Charge James Trainor said “We’re trying to apply the principles of the national-security side so we can prevent something from becoming a $50 billion fraud by catching it early on.”

Lawmakers Assail Minerals Management Service- The Washington Post

The investigation into the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to bring forward several indicators signaling something was wrong with the pipes leading up to the explosion. The investigations raise questions of the procedures and maintenance of the pipes, as well as where to place accountability for the explosion. This disaster demonstrates the importance of developing proper procedures and an ethical corporate culture.