ACC.425 Short Paper 2.1_Parnham
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
425
Subject
Law
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by LieutenantNeutron13679
Christine Parnham
2.1 Short Paper
Fraud Case Interview vs. Interrogation
Interviewing and interrogation are two distinct processes used to investigate fraud cases. Both play crucial roles in uncovering the truth and gathering evidence, but their approach, purpose, and legal implications differ (Financial Crime Academy, 2023). The primary objective of an interview is to obtain information, often from a witness or a potential victim (Vrij, 2004). They aim to gather facts, details, and perspectives about a case to understand better what happened. Interviews are typically conducted in a non-confrontational and non-coercive manner. They use open-ended questions to encourage interviewees to provide a narrative and share their accounts of the events (Vrij, 2004). They seek to build rapport and establish trust. Interviews are generally less formal and have fewer legal constraints than interrogations (Vrij, 2004). There may not be Miranda warnings or the need for a lawyer to be present during an interview.
On the other hand, interrogation is questioning a suspect to elicit a confession or extract information that could be used against the individual in court (Financial Crime Academy, 2023). It is often seen when law enforcement has reason to believe the person is involved in criminal activity. Interrogations can be more confrontational and intense (Hood & Hoffman, 2019). They often involve tactics like pressure, psychological manipulation, and the presentation of evidence to convince the suspect to confess (Hood & Hoffman, 2019). Interrogations require strict legal guidance and protections (Hood & Hoffman, 2019). A Miranda warning must be given to suspects in custody to inform them of their rights (Bibber & Lewis, 2023). Because the approach,
purpose, and legal context of these two techniques differ significantly, it is crucial to understand these distinctions to ensure that they are conducted ethically and within the bounds of the law.
In a fraud case, individuals involved, whether suspects, witnesses, or victims, have certain legal rights to ensure fair treatment within the criminal justice system. These rights are primarily designed to protect their due process and prevent abuse (Financial Crime Academy, 2023). Individuals have the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, as granted by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). They also have the right to legal counsel, established by the Sixth Amendment, allowing them to have an attorney present during interrogations, legal proceedings, and any interactions with law enforcement (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). These two rights are part of the Miranda
warning given before interrogation (Bibber & Lewis, 2023). Individuals have many other rights outlined in the US Constitution. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to a fair and impartial trial, the right to be informed of all charges, and the right to examine evidence (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). The Fifth Amendment grants the right of protection from double jeopardy, unable to be tried for the same offence more than once (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to due process, ensuring individuals are provided with a fair and impartial legal process and that their rights are respected during the proceedings (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unwarranted searches and seizures, needing a warrant to obtain property legally (
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
, 2023). As fraud is a criminal offence, the individual's rights are equal to those of every other criminally interrogated, investigated, or charged individual. During an interview, legal boundaries must be observed to protect the rights of the individuals involved (
Conducting and Documenting Interviews
, n.d.). What is legally allowed includes asking open-ended questions, seeking voluntary cooperation, and providing information
to the interviewee about their rights if they are suspects. However, what is not allowed includes coercive tactics, intimidation, threats, physical force, or any actions that violate an individual’s rights under the law, such as their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights (
Conducting and Documenting Interviews
, n.d.). The key is maintaining a respectful and non-coercive approach and ensuring that individuals are informed of their rights, particularly when they become suspects.
The Miranda Warning plays a critical role during a fraud interview, as it safeguards the legal rights of individuals being questioned, mainly when they are suspects. It is usually given to ensure they are aware of their constitutional rights. The Miranda Warning informs individuals that they can remain silent to avoid self-incrimination in a fraud case, where admissions or statements made by the suspect can be used as evidence against them (Bibber & Lewis, 2023). The warning also advises individuals of their right to have an attorney present during the interview (Bibber & Lewis, 2023). This is essential in a fraud case, as it allows the suspect to consult with legal counsel, who can provide guidance and protect their interests. By providing the Miranda Warning, individuals are made aware of the consequences of their statements, allowing them to make an informed decision about whether to speak to law enforcement or exercise their right to remain silent (Bibber & Lewis, 2023). In the context of a fraud interview, if a suspect is not correctly read their Miranda Warning, any statements they make may be inadmissible in court, which can impact the case.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Bibber, D. V., & Lewis, T. T. (2023). Miranda rights and the Supreme Court. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
Conducting and Documenting Interviews
. (n.d.). DOL. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/enforcement/oe-manual/
conducting-and-documenting-interviews
Financial Crime Academy. (2023, October 12). Unveiling The Difference Between Interview and Interrogation. Financial Crime Academy
. https://financialcrimeacademy.org/interviews-and-interrogations/
Hood, M. B., & Hoffman, L. J. (2019). Current State of Interview and Interrogation. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 1–7.
The Bill of Rights: a transcription
. (2023, April 21). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
Vrij, A. (2004). Interrogation and interviewing. In Elsevier eBooks
. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-
12-657410-3/00265-8