有法律背景的CFEs是否更胜一筹

The case was complex. The perpetrator had been handing out lucrative but unnecessary contracts that required very little work. In return, he received substantial kickbacks. Perhaps most damaging of all, the executive’s actions had caused the company to file financial reports containing material misstatements with government regulators for the previous two years. The board quickly determined that those contracts violated company policy and terminated the suspect. But then it had to decide on whether to hire an investigator or an attorney to conduct the internal investigation. The board eventually settled on an investigator who was also an attorney.

这个案子很复杂。犯罪者一直在签订利润丰厚但不必要的采购合同，这些合同只需要很少的工作。作为回报，他收到了大量回扣。也许*具破坏性的是，这位高管的行为导致该公司在过去两年中向政府监管机构提交了含有重大错报的财务报告。董事会很快确定这些合同违反了公司政策，并终止了嫌疑人的职务。但随后它不得不决定是聘请调查员还是律师来进行内部调查。董事会*终选择了一位同时也是律师的调查员。

Here was the board’s thinking. A corporate attorney or even an investigator without legal training were both capable of completing many of the standard steps in this probe, including collecting and analyzing documentary and electronic evidence, interviewing witnesses and reviewing financial records to establish if the executive’s conduct met the legal elements of embezzlement, theft and fraud, as well as violations of regulations and company policy. But this case also involved numerous legal issues that spread like tentacles into myriad areas of the law. And their nuanced nature required extensive legal expertise.

董事会的想法是这样的。公司律师甚至没有受过法律培训的调查员都有能力完成这一调查中的许多标准步骤，包括收集和分析文件和电子证据，采访证人和审查财务记录，以确定该高管的行为是否符合贪污、盗窃和舞弊的法律要素，以及违反法规和公司政策。但本案还涉及许多法律问题，这些问题像触角一样蔓延到法律的无数领域。而这些问题的细微差别需要广泛的法律专业知识。

The attorney the board chose to investigate could identify relevant legal issues and additional violations of financial reporting and corporate governance, plus contract, fiduciary and agency laws. They also had the skills to assess the company’s potential liability from government regulators and other organizations, such as the companies whose contracts had been terminated. Would regulators sanction the company for filing falsified financial reports? Could the company potentially face lawsuits from shareholders or the fraudster’s accomplices for breach of contract? These questions were better addressed by an attorney.

董事会选择的调查律师可以识别相关的法律问题和嫌疑人违反财务报告、公司治理、合同法、委托代理法的行为。他们也有能力评估公司面临的来自政府和监管机构的处罚和来自其他组织，例如那些因终止合同而导致的赔偿要求。监管机构是否会因公司提交伪造的财务报告而对其进行制裁？公司是否有可能面临来自股东或舞弊者同伙的违反合同的诉讼？这些问题*好由律师来帮助分析。

This is a fictional case drawn from some real-life examples, but it illustrates some of the dilemmas faced by management when having to choose an investigator following the sudden discovery of fraud. An investigation, of course, is a vital part of resolving fraud allegations. Ensuring that investigators have the correct skills for specific cases often makes the difference between success or failure — and ultimately the extent of costs from frauds.

这是一个从现实生活中提取的虚构案例，但它说明了管理层在突然发现舞弊后不得不选择调查员时所面临的一些困境。当然，调查是解决舞弊指控的一个重要部分。确保调查员具备处理具体案件的必备技能，往往是成功或失败的关键——并*终影响舞弊行为所导致的成本和/或损失。

Investigators will often work in tandem with companies’ audit, compliance and accounting teams. And more often than not, those investigators are CFEs. According to the ACFE’s In-House Fraud Investigation Teams: 2019 Benchmarking Report, on average, 43% of fraud investigators are CFEs, followed by Certified Public Accountants or Chartered Accountants (20%) and Certified Internal Auditors (16%).

调查员经常与公司的审计、合规和会计团队合作。而更多时候，这些调查员是CFEs。根据ACFE的《内部舞弊调查团队：2019年基准报告》，平均而言，43%的舞弊调查员是CFEs，其次是注册会计师或特许会计师（20%）和注册内部审计师（16%）。

While those credentials are highly valued, sometimes management must decide between selecting an attorney with expertise in investigating fraud or a person without legal training to lead a probe. Both have their merits, but legal skills are often required in complex cases and it sometimes, but not always, helps that an investigator wears multiple hats. For example, establishing intent — especially in contemplating a criminal referral — could hinge on a deep understanding of statutory, regulatory and case law, and an attorney would be better positioned to anticipate and prepare for any affirmative legal defenses that could be raised.

虽然这些证书受到高度重视，但有时管理层必须在选择具有调查舞弊行为专业知识的律师或没有经过法律培训的人领导调查工作之间做出决定。两者都有其优点，但在复杂的案件中往往需要法律技能，而且有时（但并不总是）调查员身兼数职会有帮助。例如，确定意图——特别是在考虑刑事移交时——可能取决于对法律、法规和案例法的深刻理解，而律师将更有能力预测和准备可能提出的任何肯定性法律辩护。

And — much like in the fictitious case above — if a senior employee improperly accepted financial “gifts” from a third-party contractor to overlook irregular and potentially fraudulent activity, the attorney conducting the investigation would be able to identify and address several related legal issues directly affecting the case that a non-attorney would’ve likely missed. These related legal issues concerning violations of contract terms and policies, and breach of duty to the organization, are important as they involve liability risks and could help in uncovering additional findings that might lead to disciplining a perpetrator.

而且，就像上面的虚构案例一样，如果一名高级职员不适当地接受了第三方承包商的贿金，从而忽略了异常和潜在的舞弊活动，进行调查的律师将能够识别和提出直接影响该案件的几个相关法律问题，而“非律师”调查可能会错过。这些相关的法律问题涉及违反合同条款和政策，以及违反对组织的责任，是非常重要的，因为它们涉及责任风险，并有助于发现更多可能导致惩戒犯罪者的发现。

But is an attorney always better suited to conduct an investigation than a well-trained non-attorney investigator in every case? Would assigning an investigation to a trained, experienced investigator make more sense in a particular circumstance? Well, it depends. There are benefits, potential disadvantages and other issues when organizations use attorneys as investigators. (See the sidebar “Wearing two hats” at the end of this article.) Any number of external factors may influence whether an attorney or non-attorney may be a better fit as an investigator, particularly in fraud and related investigations. But you must consider individual professional factors such as education, training and mindset. Here are some reasons why an attorney might be a good choice in a fraud investigation.

但是，在每个案件中，是否律师调查员总是比训练有素的非律师调查员更适合进行调查呢？在特定情况下，将调查工作分配给训练有素、经验丰富的调查员是否更有意义呢？嗯，这取决于——当组织使用律师作为调查员时，有好处、但也有潜在的缺点和其他问题。(见本文末尾的侧边栏 "戴着两顶帽子")。任何数量的外部因素都可能影响律师或非律师作为调查员是否更合适，特别是在舞弊和相关调查中。但你必须考虑个人的专业因素，如教育、培训和心态。以下是律师在舞弊调查中可能是很好的选择的原因。

Both attorneys and non-attorney investigators are usually familiar with the elements of the law, rules or policies related to the violations they’re examining, but attorneys are highly trained in “issue spotting,” the process of using the facts to identify problems and understand the broader issues of the case, beyond just the evidence collected.

律师和非律师调查员通常都熟悉与他们所审查的违法行为有关的法律、规则或政策的内容，但律师在 "发现问题 "方面受过高度训练，即利用事实来发现问题并了解案件中更多方面的问题，而不仅仅是收集证据。

Issue spotting is an essential skill for passing exams at law school and becoming an attorney. An investigator can’t address certain issues if they go unnoticed. So, finding connections between related ideas is important. And that big picture not only helps in an investigation of a particular case but could help CFEs spot gaps in fraud controls and prevent a repeat performance of a crime. (See “7 Ways to Improve Issue Spotting in Workplace Investigations,” by Joseph Agins, i-Sight, Aug. 28, 2012, and “Issue Spotting Skills,” LawSchoolSecretstoSuccess, reprinted from Study Partner™.)

发现问题是通过法律考试和成为律师的一项基本技能。如果某些问题没有被注意到，调查员就无法解决这些问题。因此，找到相关事务之间的联系是很重要的。而这种大局观不仅有助于对某一特定案件的调查，而且可以帮助CFEs发现舞弊控制方面的漏洞，防止犯罪行为的重复发生。(见 "在工作场所调查中改进问题发现的7种方法"，作者Joseph Agins，i-Sight，2012年8月28日，以及 "问题发现技能"，LawSchoolSecretstoSuccess，转载自学习伙伴™）。

White-collar fraud is often difficult to prove, and being able to identify more nuanced issues can be a useful skill and help prove intent. Indeed, connecting the dots and having a broader perspective make all the difference in an investigation.

白领舞弊往往难以被证明，所以如果能够识别更多细小的问题那就是很有用的技能，大大有助于证明舞弊意图。事实上，如果把这些问题联系起来并从多方面的视角分析，将在调查中大有益处。

In corporate cross-border investigations, for example, an investigating attorney with international law knowledge and experience, as well as contacts in other countries’ governments and private sectors, could be key. In a politically sensitive investigation I conducted, my legal education and experience were essential in navigating several issues in the case in which numerous congressional committees were pursuing concurrent investigations while separate but related congressional and other agency office of inspector general investigations were also in progress.

例如，在跨境调查企业时，调查律师具有国际法知识和经验且在其他国家政府和私营部门有联络人很关键。在由我进行的一项政治敏感的调查中，我的法律教育和经验对于处理案件中的几个问题至关重要，虽然有许多国会委员以及其他单独有关机构也在同时调查这起案件。

Depending on the circumstances and relevant law, work product surrounding an investigation (i.e., all the written documents, notes of conversations and other materials that are part of the investigation and are used in preparation for a legal case) may be subject to attorney-client privilege. This could provide a significant advantage to an organization investigating fraud and facing litigation as it won’t be obliged to present this information in litigation or reveal it to the other side. However, those privileges can potentially be waived under certain circumstances such as when the attorney discloses the work product to a third party so the legal adversary could gain access to it. And courts have occasionally opined that “fusing the roles of internal investigator and legal advisor,” in some cases at least, partially waives attorney-client privilege. (See “Attorney Work Product Privilege,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, and “Chivers v. Central Noble Community Schools,” casetext, Aug. 4, 2005.)

根据不同的情况和相关法律，围绕调查的工作成果（即书面文件、谈话记录以及作为调查的一部分并用于准备法律案件的其他材料）可能会受到律师—当事人特权的限制。这可以为调查舞弊和面临诉讼的组织提供一个重大优势，因为它没有义务在诉讼中提交这些信息或向对方透露这些信息。然而，这些特权在某些情况下有可能被取缔，比如，当律师向第三方披露工作成果时，对方律师可以获得这些信息。法院有时认为，"融合内部调查员和法律顾问的角色"，在某些情况下，会部分地取缔律师—当事人这一特权。(见 "律师工作成果特权"，康奈尔大学法学院法律信息研究所，以及 "Chivers诉Central Noble社区学校"，案例集，2005年8月4日）

An attorney’s routine activities are often similar to tasks common to conducting an investigation. Gathering and analyzing evidence, conducting background research, and performing factual and legal analyses are staples of the provision of legal services, especially for litigation attorneys.

律师的日常活动往往与调查员进行调查时常见的任务相似。收集和分析证据、进行背景研究、进行事实和法律分析是提供法律服务的主要内容，特别是对诉讼律师而言。

Another investigative skill set that attorneys commonly possess is familiarity with sources of information, such as court records and internet research. Writing skills are also emphasized in law school and in practice; so, many lawyers are proficient at conveying information and effectively organizing their cases. Attorneys, like many investigators, are trained in applying the relevant law to the facts to reach legal opinions or conclusions, in a process known as fact-law integration. This allows lawyers to see things from all sides and different angles, and to intellectually put themselves in the shoes of potential malefactors. Typical attorney traits of thoroughness and meticulousness translate well into conducting detailed investigative work.

律师普遍具备的另一项调查技能是熟悉信息来源，如法院记录和互联网研究。写作技巧在法学院和实践中也得到重视；因此，许多律师精通沟通信息和有效整理案件。律师和许多调查员一样，在将相关法律应用于事实以得出法律意见或结论方面接受过培训，这一过程被称为事实—法律一体化。这使律师能够从多方面、不同角度看待问题，并能站在潜在犯罪者的立场上思考问题。律师的全面性和细致性特质可以很好地转化为对调查工作的深入开展。

The benefits of using attorneys as investigators isn’t limited to technical aspects. In some cases, having an attorney conduct an investigation could be interpreted as sending a message to the subjects and witnesses about the seriousness of the matter. With certain high-profile circumstances, hiring respected, experienced law firms or appointing special counsels to conduct investigations can also send a message to the public about the matter’s importance.

使用律师作为调查员的好处并不局限于技术方面。在某些情况下，让律师进行调查可以被理解为向当事人和证人传递有关事件严重性的信息。在某些被外界高度关注的情况下，聘请受人尊敬的、有经验的律师事务所或任命特别顾问进行调查，也可以向公众传递有关该事件重要性的信息。

Yet sometimes attorneys and the mindsets they bring can sabotage investigations. Let’s take the real-life case of an attorney leading an investigation into the financial improprieties at a blue-collar union in a small, rural town. The attorney interviewed the union members in a stuffy downtown office, hours away from their homes, and in a formal manner with no attempt to build rapport or make the interviewees feel at ease. The interviewees’ discomfort in the situation was palpable. And while seemingly cooperative, they didn’t expound on their answers. Sometimes they appeared to avoid substantive answers and possibly even tried to deceive. The union members almost seemed to feel they were being cross-examined by a hostile lawyer in a courtroom.

然而，有时律师和他们带来的思维方式会破坏调查。让我们来看看一个真实的案例：一位律师领导了对一个农村小镇的蓝领工人工会的财务不当行为的调查。该律师在市中心的一个闷热的办公室里与工会成员进行了面谈，离他们的家有几个小时的路程，而且面谈的方式很正式，没有试图建立融洽的关系或让受访者感到轻松。受访者在这种情况下的不适感是显而易见的。虽然看起来很合作，但他们并没有对自己的答案进行阐述。有时他们似乎在回避实质性的答案，甚至可能试图欺骗。工会成员似乎觉得他们是在法庭上被一个充满敌意的律师盘问。

The formal structure of the interview, which the attorney treated more like a deposition, didn’t allow for the type of follow-up questions that may have led to more revealing answers. Had a non-attorney investigator conducted the interviews in a less formal fashion, perhaps at a more neutral location and in a more relaxed atmosphere, the interviewer would arguably have elicited more information to build a stronger case or generate new leads. Ultimately, the interviews by the attorney produced little meaningful additional information for use in the case.

律师对待访谈的正式形式更像是取证，不允许提出可能导致更多暴露答案的后续问题。如果非律师调查员以非正式的方式进行访谈，并在更合适的地点和更轻松的氛围中，访谈者可能会获得更多信息，以建立更强大的案件或产生新的线索。*终，律师的访谈并没有产生什么有意义的额外信息用于本案。

Attorneys can often treat interviews as depositions when less formal approaches would work better. Depositions conducted under rules of procedure governing court proceedings are designed to gather evidence under oath that can be used in a legal action, and they follow strict procedures, including allowing for objections. While depositions are useful, they may not be the best way to gather background information to obtain admissions or confessions, or to get co-conspirators to turn on their partners in crime. Less formal interviews are arguably better suited to extract this type of information. They allow for more conversational exchanges with fewer interruptions like objections that could disrupt the flow of dialogue.

当非正式的方法效果更好时，律师往往可以把面谈当作取证。根据法院诉讼程序规则进行的取证旨在收集可用于法律诉讼的证据，并遵循严格的程序，包括允许提出异议。虽然取证是有用的，但无法通过收集背景信息来认罪或是获取供词，或是让同谋者揭发其犯罪伙伴的*佳方式。可以说，非正式的面谈更适合提取这类信息。它们允许更多的对话式交流，而像反对意见这样可能破坏对话流程的中断情况较少。

Interviews are a critical component of almost any investigation. Trained, experienced investigators know how to build rapport, look for signs of deception and probe a witness to get to the truth. The soft skills of being able to relate to people, show empathy and gain their trust may be more effective in getting answers than the more formal, facts-driven approach of a deposition, which attorneys feel comfortable using.

面谈几乎是任何调查的一个重要组成部分。训练有素、经验丰富的调查员知道如何建立融洽的关系，寻找欺骗的迹象，并探究证人以了解真相。能够与人打交道，表现出同情心并获得他们的信任，这种软技能在获得答案方面可能比更正式的、以事实为导向的取证方法更有效，而律师们在使用这种方法时感到很舒服。

The active-listening technique, used often in interviews, could seem out of place in a deposition. Training in interviewing techniques can help attorneys become great investigators. Early in my law enforcement career, I probably missed opportunities to get more information from witnesses and subjects by taking more formal approaches to my interviews. Fortunately, with experience and training, I learned how to build rapport and gain trust, and became a much better interviewer. (See “Interviewing the Fraudster: A Strategic Approach,” by Liza Ayres, ACFE, Fraud Conference News, March 30, 2021.)

在面谈中经常使用的主动倾听技巧，在取证中可能显得格格不入。面谈技巧的培训可以帮助律师成为优秀的调查员。在我执法生涯的早期，我可能错过了从证人和对象那里获得更多信息的机会，因为我采取了更正式的采访方式。幸运的是，随着经验和培训的积累，我学会了如何建立融洽的关系和获得信任，并成为一个更好的采访者。(见 "采访舞弊者。战略方法"，作者Liza Ayres，ACFE，舞弊会议新闻，2021年3月30日）。

Many attorneys are proficient at writing persuasive memoranda and briefs that put their arguments in the best light, or in drafting legal analyses with recommendations for their clients or organizations. However, investigative report writing is factual and should be unbiased and fully account for exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence. This is one area where having the mindset of a fact-finder rather than an advocate or advisor is crucial.

许多律师精通于撰写有说服力的备忘录和简报，将他们的论点放在*佳位置，或起草法律分析报告，为他们的客户或组织提供建议。然而，调查报告的写作是实事求是的，应该不偏不倚，充分考虑到无罪和有罪的证据。在这一领域，拥有事实调查者而非倡导者或顾问的心态是至关重要的。

Some attorneys also have little experience in other skills, such as investigative interview tactics, physical and electronic surveillance, psychology and criminology, and computer forensics. Typically, non-attorney investigators have more expertise in these areas, including forensic auditing, a valuable asset in fraud investigations. And while attorneys often have training and experience in locating sources of information and using databases, a non-attorney investigator’s training may be broader and more in-depth in this area.

一些律师在其他技能方面也缺乏经验，如调查采访策略、物理和电子监控、心理学和犯罪学以及计算机取证。通常情况下，非律师调查员在这些领域拥有更多的专业知识，包括法证审计，这是舞弊调查中的宝贵财富。虽然律师通常在寻找信息来源和使用数据库方面有培训和经验，但非律师调查员在这方面的培训可能更广泛、更深入。

Every case has its own unique characteristics that will affect an organization’s decision in its choice of fraud investigator. In some cases, it may be beneficial to utilize both attorneys and non-attorney investigators, as well as other professionals such as forensic accountants, in investigations. Bringing different but complementary professional perspectives and skill sets into an investigation is advantageous to forming a complete and accurate picture, and having both attorneys and non-attorney investigators on the investigative team may produce the best results.

每个案件都有其独特的特点，这将影响组织在选择舞弊调查员时的决定。某些情况下，在调查中同时利用律师和非律师调查员以及其他专业人员，比如法务会计，可能是有益的。在调查中引入不同但互补的专业视角和技能组合，有利于对案件进行完整和准确的分析，在调查小组中同时有律师和非律师调查员可能会产生*佳效果。

J. Cameron Thurber, J.D., CFE, is an associate counsel with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Office of Inspector General (FDIC OIG). The analysis, conclusions and opinions in this article are those of the author’s alone and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the FDIC OIG. Contact him at jthurber@fdicoig.gov.

See sidebar: “Wearing two hats”.]

J. Cameron Thurber, J.D., CFE, 是联邦存款保险公司监察长办公室（FDIC OIG）的副顾问。本文的分析、结论和意见仅代表作者本人，不一定反映FDIC OIG的观点。请与他联系：jthurber@fdicoig.gov。

[见侧边栏："戴着两顶帽子"] 。