Mastering culturally sensitive fraud examination interviews

Interviewing subjects with sensitivity to their cultural backgrounds encourages good rapport and productive interviews. To set fraud examiners up for success, the authors impart their practical, culturally nuanced approach to interviewing subjects from a variety of backgrounds.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of any affiliated organization.

With 1.43 billion people, India isn’t just the most populous country in the world — it’s also a diverse country that’s home to many ethnic and religious traditions. There are 22 languages spoken in India, and customs and traditions vary widely by demographic. As fraud examiners working in this rapidly growing and economically flourishing country, we’ve had many experiences interviewing different populations. As a result, we’ve developed a practical, culturally nuanced approach to interviewing subjects from a variety of Indian communities.

Interviewing diverse groups has its challenges, especially when you’re operating in a culture different from your own. A fraud examiner who isn’t familiar with the social dynamics of a particular region could misinterpret an interviewee’s body language or the pace and tone of a conversation. These misinterpretations might lead an interviewer to overlook critical nonverbal and culturally nuanced signals, such as changes in eye contact, brief pauses or hand gestures that might indicate that an interviewee is withholding information or feeling uneasy.

Consider this fictional scenario: Mr. P is a fraud examiner for X Inc., based in the U.S. He’s investigating a case that requires him to interview employees of a company with offices in India and Japan. Mr. P is set to interview Mr. A from India and Mr. B from Japan. But Mr. P was unfamiliar with the cultures of those countries and didn’t know about the indirect mode of conversation (less need to be explicit, relying less on words to convey meaning and focusing more on nonverbal communication) common among Indians and Japanese restraint in emotional expressions. Mr. P misread Mr. A’s pauses as ambiguousness and Mr. B’s silence as defiance. Because of these cultural misinterpretations, Mr. P incorrectly assessed his interviewees’ credibility, which resulted in a flawed report that delayed the investigation and overlooked key discrepancies in their statements.

Understanding these different communication styles could’ve helped Mr. P conduct better interviews and reveal key facts of the case. Knowing an interview subject’s cultural background and demonstrating that knowledge with thoughtful questions are invaluable assets during an interview. When a fraud examiner comes to an interview with that knowledge, they’re better able to build trust with the subject, making them more comfortable and willing to provide accurate information.

To better understand the impact of cultural sensitivity on the inquiry, we’ve created interview scenarios based in India, the U.S. and the U.K. These scenarios, which we also present in a table later in this article, show how employees’ respect for hierarchy and authority may differ by cultural background and play a crucial role in the interviewer’s approach to questioning. We’ll also show how a lack of cultural sensitivity toward an interviewee can have a detrimental impact on the outcomes of these scenarios.

Case studies for cultural comparisons

To illustrate the importance of taking culture into consideration, we’ll examine the fictional case of Mr. M, a 38-year-old manager in the purchasing department at WXYZ Corp. Mr. M has been implicated in a potential kickback scheme. The fraud examiner is tasked with an admission-seeking interview, obtaining details about others involved in the scheme and corroborating evidence.

If this scenario were in India, the interviewer would need to understand its workplace dynamics where employees generally show respect for authority and want to be treated professionally.

To build rapport with the manager, the interviewer might begin the interview by saying, “Mr. M, I know you’re a senior member of the team, and your expertise is crucial in understanding the situation.” By acknowledging his position and treating him professionally, the interviewer can make Mr. M feel respected and open to sharing necessary details about the kickback scheme. Without such cultural understanding, however, the interviewer could undervalue Mr. M’s experience. A comment such as, “You’ve been here long enough; just tell me what happened,” risks alienating the manager and discouraging him from cooperating.

Now, let’s take this scenario to the U.S., where hierarchy is valued within many organizations, but employees expect to be treated equally, especially in environments that emphasize teamwork and collaboration. Keeping these ideas in mind, the interviewer might say, “Mr. M, I appreciate your time. Let’s look at the situation from your perspective. Your experience will help us understand what happened.” This approach is respectful yet informal and encourages open dialogue. Failing to respect Mr. M’s expertise by demanding, “Just explain it!” could make him feel dismissed, causing a breakdown in communication.

In the U.K., employees respect authority and value a balance between formal and informal communication. In most professional settings, people use titles, but this practice isn’t always stressed. To show respect while maintaining a professional tone, the interviewer might say, “Mr. M, I’d like to discuss this issue with you professionally to understand what happened. Your insights are valuable to the process.” Not recognizing the manager’s role or treating him informally (using first names without any formal context) could make him uncomfortable and less cooperative.

Our expertise in conducting culturally sensitive investigative fraud interviews is specific to India, but the essential skills and ethical considerations we focus on in this article apply to business environments in a variety of cultures and countries. Regardless of where you’re based, the information that follows can help guide you in handling fraud examination interviews with cultural sensitivity while ensuring compliance with local laws and adherence to data privacy regulations. In the table below, we map out different approaches to cultural differences during interviews.

[See the “References” section at the end of this article for sources used to create the table.]

Do your homework

A strong grasp of the subject matter of the examination, including relevant laws, internal policies and business processes, is essential for conducting effective interviews, no matter where you are. Lacking knowledge — or worse — having only a superficial understanding can lead to significant missteps. I [Anuj Choudhary] recall what my reporting manager used to say about preparing for interviews: “Make sure the homework is done and you’re not hearing about the processes, practices and general outliers for the first time during the interview.”

Now, as an experienced fraud examiner, I impart that wisdom to my junior reports and peers, emphasizing the importance of preparation. Entering an interview prepared ensures that the conversation is focused on uncovering additional insights, securing admissions or gathering ancillary information. This level of preparedness also facilitates a seamless, effective conclusion to the interview.

Having knowledge of key provisions from the jurisdiction in which you’re working is nonnegotiable. For example, in India, familiarity with laws such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Companies Act, 2013; Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023 can significantly enhance the quality of interviews. Familiarize yourself with the applicable laws and regulations pertaining to data collection and electronic transactions of the jurisdiction you’ll be working in.

These legal frameworks not only guide investigations but also safeguard fraud examiners from allegations of noncompliance or challenges that could arise during or after an investigation.

A framework for a successful interview

A questionnaire or skeleton framework serves as a strategic tool to guide the interview and ensure that it’s productive and efficient. Here are the top three benefits of interview questionnaires based on our experience:

1. A questionnaire facilitates a comprehensive, focused interview and acts as a checklist of essential questions, ensuring inclusion of all critical details.
2. It maintains a clear structure, preventing unnecessary detours and ensuring all important points are covered within the allotted time.
3. A predefined framework serves as a roadmap for balanced questioning without unintentionally leading or influencing the interviewee.

Even a quickly crafted questionnaire helps guide the conversation effectively. It doesn’t need to be intricately structured or formal. What matters is that it helps you stay on track during the interview and reminds you of the important issues to address with the interviewee.

Tailoring the interview strategy to the employee’s position can facilitate a productive meeting. For example, in India, if you’re interviewing a field employee (a staff member working outside the central office, often in sales, service or operations), the framework you use will depend on the dynamics of the encounter. Field employees may feel a sense of loyalty to their managers or coworkers and may also be concerned about their job security or reputation within the team. For field employees, managers are their primary point of contact within the company. Acknowledging the challenges field employees face helps ease their apprehension and allows for more honest, revealing responses. In these cases, the investigator must be mindful of the power dynamics at play, using a tone that’s empathetic, nonjudgmental and respectful. The approach should convey understanding while encouraging openness. For example, a framework that starts with, “I understand the pressures you face in your role, and I’m here to listen and understand your perspective,” can set a constructive tone.

Likewise, the approach would vary when dealing with corporate employees or factory workers. Corporate employees often operate in structured environments where formal communication and data-driven discussions are standard. They may appreciate a professional tone that aligns with their daily interactions. In contrast, plant or factory employees, who are typically engaged in hands-on work, may feel a stronger sense of pride in their practical skills and contributions. Recognizing and respecting their expertise can foster trust and openness during interviews.

Respect, empathy and emotional intelligence

Respecting people, demonstrating empathy and leveraging emotional intelligence are essential elements for a constructive, supportive interview environment. Respecting individuals means recognizing their dignity, treating them with fairness and considering their perspectives, even as they’re being scrutinized. Showing empathy involves understanding and relating to the emotions of others, which helps build rapport and trust, especially in sensitive or emotionally charged investigations.

My first supervisor, who’s now a mentor, instilled empathy and respect in me. He shared a simple yet profound lesson: “Anuj, how would you want others to talk to you? Please talk to the subject in the same tone.” This helped me understand that the interviewee may be under scrutiny, but they’re still a person. How we approach them matters. We may or may not remain colleagues, depending on the outcome of the interview, but the dignity and respect we offer should never be contingent on that outcome.

Emotional intelligence — the ability to recognize, understand and manage emotions in yourself and others — helps interviewers navigate complex interpersonal dynamics, and stay calm, composed and discerning, even in high-stress situations. For example, during an inquiry into potential workplace misconduct, a fraud examiner may have to interview an employee who acts defensively. Instead of focusing solely on the allegations, you’d show empathy by acknowledging the stress the employee is experiencing, which creates an environment for open communication. This approach not only helps to gather accurate information but also ensures that the employee feels respected, leading to a collaborative resolution.

Choice of interview technique

During our early consulting days, we learned that one size doesn’t fit all. In other words, no single interviewing technique works in every situation. Corporate investigators must choose the right approach based on the person they’re interviewing, the nature of the case and the information they need to uncover. Common interview techniques include funnel, tunnel, reverse funnel, direct, cognitive and leading questions.

As fraud examiners know, interviews generally start with general, open-ended questions and then narrow to specific questions about the case. This type of interview, known as the funnel technique, is useful when you need to build rapport with the subject before drilling down to the details. The funnel technique maintains a consistent level of detail throughout the interview, which is effective when you need to stay focused on a particular topic. In cases where truthfulness is in question, you might deploy the cognitive interview technique, which “places emphasis on the witness’s recollection of details to give investigators a more complete picture of what actually happened during a specific event.” When using leading questions, however, the interviewer hints at the answer. Use this technique carefully as it can “evoke a specific reply from the respondent,” as these questions “contain a suggested answer.” Best practices for using the leading technique include reserving it for situations where prior facts exist, avoiding it early in the interview process, balancing it with open-ended questions and documenting why the technique was used to ensure fairness.

For example, investigators looking into a potential policy violation may use the funnel approach and start with a broad question, such as, “Can you tell me about a typical day at work?” The interviewer may then ask more direct questions, such as, “Did you report the issue to your supervisor?” Using this technique, the interviewer adapts the approach based on the circumstances.

Data privacy practices and management

If you’re investigating a case in India, it’s important to prioritize data privacy during interviews, especially with the phased implementation of the DPDP Act. Provisions of the act include obtaining informed consent, collecting only necessary data, using secure communication channels and ensuring confidentiality when collecting personal data. The DPDP Act defines personal data as “any data about an individual, who is identifiable by or in relation to such data.” Personal data should be retained only for as long as required. India’s Sensitive Personal Data or Information (SPDI) Rules define sensitive data as passwords; bank account, credit card, debit card or other payment details; physical, physiological and mental health conditions; sexual orientation; medical records and history; biometric information; and other personal details. Sensitive data should be anonymized or redacted, and interviewers should be transparent about data subjects’ rights, restrict data usage to the investigation’s purpose and follow the relevant protocols.

Seven principles in the DPDP Act form the basis of relevant protocols that investigators should follow:

1. Consented, lawful and transparent use of personal data.
2. Use of personal data only for the purpose specified at the time of obtaining consent.
3. Collection of only as much personal data as is necessary to serve the specified purpose.
4. Data accuracy.
5. Storing data only for as long as it’s needed for the specified purpose.
6. Reasonable security safeguards.
7. Accountability.

For example, obtaining informed consent from an employee before conducting an investigative interview ensures that financial details are anonymized and email platforms used to share sensitive findings (personally identifiable information) are secure. To properly obtain informed consent, follow these guidelines:

• Clear explanation: Explain the interview’s purpose, data to be collected and how it will be used.
• Voluntary agreement: Inform the interviewee that participation is voluntary and consent can be withdrawn anytime.
• Documentation: Document consent via signed form, email confirmation or recorded verbal consent at the start of the interview.
• Data protection measures: Reassure the interviewee about data protection measures such as anonymization and secure storage.

Documentation and recordkeeping

Documentation and recordkeeping are critical for ensuring the accuracy, transparency and integrity of an investigative interview. Interviewers may use several documentation methods, each offering its own benefits. One option specific to India involves requesting that the interviewee write down what they’re saying during the interview. The interviewee and investigator then sign off on the written statement to confirm mutual understanding and agreement. In another India-centric approach, the investigator documents the interview on behalf of the subject, after which the subject reads the entire document, confirms its accuracy and signs it. If there are any discrepancies, the interviewee can request corrections before signing. A more formal method entails recording the entire discussion via audio or video, obtaining the interviewee’s consent beforehand. The interviewee can review the transcript for accuracy. Alternatively, an independent transcription expert can be appointed to transcribe the interview and provide an unbiased record, which can be signed by the subject, transcription expert and interviewer.

We often use Microsoft Teams for virtual and physical interviews due to its recordkeeping and automatic transcription features. We obtain the interviewee’s consent before conducting the interview and share the auto-generated transcript and a summary with the interviewee to confirm its accuracy. This method ensures clarity, accountability and a verifiable record of the interview.

What can go wrong

Being unprepared for an interview is detrimental to properly gathering necessary information. For a successful interview, the interviewer should be well-versed in the case and the subject’s background. An interviewer can’t simply walk into the interview room with only a basic understanding of the situation and expect great results.

Failing to build rapport with the interviewee can have far-reaching consequences for a fraud examination. If the interviewee feels uneasy or uncomfortable, especially in the initial stages, the interviewer may encounter roadblocks such as nonfactual or guarded responses, partial disclosure of information, and misunderstandings or misinterpretation of questions. Establishing a connection with the interviewee is vital, as people are more likely to open up to someone they like and trust. To foster this connection, demonstrate genuine interest in the person’s life, interests and experiences. The following techniques can help build rapport with interview subjects:

• Ensure that the interviewee’s basic needs are met and periodically check that they feel comfortable.
• Initiate the conversation with light, informal exchanges to help set a collaborative tone.
• Maintain open, engaged body language. In India, for example, sitting upright and leaning forward indicates alertness while showing deference for hierarchy. In the U.S., open palms while speaking signify sincerity and transparency.
• Express gratitude and appreciation for candid responses.
• Explain the interview process and what the subject may expect afterward.
• Display interest in the conversation.

By incorporating these strategies, investigators can communicate effectively and improve their assessments of interviewees.

Bias can be a destructive force in investigative interviews, leading to various problems, such as misleading information, missing the right opportunities to gather critical evidence and flawed conclusions. Unconscious bias is the automatic, often subconscious, attitudes and stereotypes people hold about certain groups. It can influence people’s judgments and actions without their awareness. These biases influence question formulations and affect the interviewer’s demeanor. Unconscious biases can manifest in nonverbal cues, such as body language and tone of voice, which can affect the interviewee’s comfort level and willingness to cooperate.

During the conversation, you must phrase questions carefully; refrain from making comments that could be perceived as offensive. Don’t make assumptions or fast-forward to conclusions. Avoid asking questions that are accusatory or emotionally charged, such as “Did you misappropriate company assets?” These kinds of questions can trigger defensive behavior, hinder open dialogue and lead to defensive communication. Instead, the questions should be open-ended, neutral and designed to extract facts without implying guilt. You could ask the interviewee, “Can you help me by making me understand your role and responsibilities related to asset handling, movement and any other relevant areas?” Interviewers should avoid biased comments, such as “People from your state are known for doing these kinds of things. Is that true?”

Interviewing someone you know personally — whether through friendship, prior collaboration or corporate hierarchy — is also a recipe for bias. In such cases, we advise:

• Disclosing the relationship to the investigation lead or ethics office.
• Recusing yourself from the interview, if possible, to maintain objectivity.
• Involving a neutral third party to conduct or partner in conducting the interview.

We’ve witnessed two forms of bias in our experience as investigators. One involved seniority bias, lending undue credibility to senior employees over junior staff, assuming experience equates to honesty. In this case, an investigator interviewing a senior employee asked simple, open-ended, neutral questions. The same investigator asked a junior employee close-ended questions with an intense tone. To avoid falling into the trap of seniority bias during an interview, treat all interviewees equally regardless of their rank and practice consistent questioning styles. In addition, avoid deferential language, such as, “Sir, I’m sure you wouldn’t do something like this.”

Another example involved gender bias, the assumption that one gender is more capable of committing certain kinds of violations or misconduct. For example, an investigator interviewing a woman accused of identity theft took her statements at face value and eliminated her from suspicion because the investigator believed that women don’t normally commit identity theft. That investigator asked a man also facing allegations of identity theft multiple questions and challenged his statements. To ensure that female and male employees are treated equally, ask each person the same or similar questions. Give them both a similar level of respect, and avoid gender-biased language, such as “As a sister, you wouldn’t,” or “He seems aggressive.”

Don’t neglect gender sensitivity, interview location and privacy and safety considerations when developing your interview approach. If you’re a man interviewing a woman, think about having other women (a human resources representative or another interviewer) in the room to make her feel comfortable. Avoid interviewing anyone in public and choose a neutral location to conduct the interview.

Bridging cultural gaps for successful interviews

A fruitful fact-finding mission requires careful consideration, especially when you’re conducting a fraud examination in an unfamiliar jurisdiction. Those managing examinations must also select the right interviewer for the job — they should have an appropriate level of experience and subject-matter expertise to effectively meet goals.

Understanding and adjusting your approach based on cultural differences in communication, hierarchy, formality and emotional sensitivity creates a respectful, cooperative atmosphere in interviews. By ignoring cultural differences, however, you run the risk of alienating the staff, hindering the search for the truth and souring professional ties. Using culturally sensitive interview techniques fosters trust among all parties involved, promoting honesty and openness from the staff. Mastery of this culturally nuanced approach to fraud interviews helps to preserve cross-cultural professional ties in an increasingly diverse business world.

Anuj Choudhary, CFE, CA, CISA, is an experienced compliance, risk, and ethics professional with experience working with Grant Thornton Bharat LLP (as associate director in risk and ESG consulting), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (as corporate compliance manager in the global ombudsperson and monitoring team), and with EY and BDO in their India practices. Contact him at Ca.anuj@hotmail.com.

J.V. Phani Kiran, CFE, CA, is an experienced compliance, risk and ethics professional with experience working with MRF (as head of Internal Audit), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited, and Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, an Indian arm of Big 6 accounting firms. Contact him at Phanikiranjv@gmail.com.

References

Cultural Differences Between India and USA that Students Must Know!, by Malvika Chawla, Leverageedu.com, January 9, 2025.

Cultural Considerations in India, Rivermate.com, April 25, 2025.

Styles of Communication: Direct and Indirect, Peacecorps.gov.

Cultural Considerations in United Kingdom, Rivermate.com, April 25, 2025.

Cultural Considerations in United States of America, Rivermate.com, April 25, 2025.

British vs. Indian Culture — Important Cultural Differences, Commisceo Global.

Work Culture in India and the UK: What Makes them Different?, Technologist Confidant.

Cultural Differences Between UK and India in Business, Hidayat Rizvi, September 1, 2024.

Interesting Facts About Cultural Differences In India And Us, by Prince Kumar, Global Indian Network, August 12, 2023.