Commercial forensic interviewing in the South African context: the Ponaletso CFI framework

Abstract

Purpose

The continued prevalence of financial crime and the lack of effective commercial forensic interviewing strategies prompted the development, presented here, of a conceptual framework to explain the relational dynamics conducive to interactions during a commercial forensic interview (CFI). The purpose of this study is to present such a framework which may facilitate the process of obtaining admissible evidence in different forums.

Design/methodology/approach

A grounded theory approach was adopted to develop a conceptual framework, drawing on the findings of a scoping review, direct observations of interactions involving commercial forensic practitioners (FPs) and interviewees, and data obtained from semi-structured interviews, making use of critical realism as a meta-theoretical framework.

Findings

Data obtained from the review informed the integrated approach of the conceptual framework, thus combining the structure of the PEACE model and creating an optimal interpersonal context informed by the person-centred approach (PCA). Observational data were used to identify the relational qualities associated with the interpersonal styles (clusters of relational qualities) of FPs in the CFI context, thereby contributing to complex relational dynamics. Interview data were used both to describe effective and ineffective interpersonal styles and how they played out in the CFI with interviewees, yielding information that unfortunately proved not to be admissible in a legal context. The findings of the different phases indicated the need for an integrated conceptual approach, the Ponaletso CFI framework, which draws on the structure of the PEACE model and the PCA, as expressed in the relational qualities of interactional pattern analysis (IPA). The framework consists of the interview stage (before, during and after), the structure (phases) of the PEACE model, the type of questions (open- or closed-ended) according to the PCA, FPs’ interpersonal styles (clusters of relational qualities as explained by IPA) and the observable relational dynamics between FPs and interviewees. When FPs use the Ponaletso CFI framework, there is a greater likelihood of extracting admissible evidence because the interview is guided by a clear structure with a step-by-step questioning approach by FPs, while taking into consideration the relational dynamics to which they contribute.

Originality/value

The proposed conceptual framework considers relational dynamics and how FPs can navigate towards optimal relational dynamics in CFI contexts. FPs can apply the structure, ask appropriate questions at the relevant phases and observe the relational dynamics playing out in the interpersonal context of the CFI. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at creating an integrated interviewing framework for conducting CFIs aligned with the legal context in South Africa. Using the Ponaletso CFI framework may aid FPs in obtaining admissible evidence and facilitate an optimal interpersonal context during commercial forensic investigations while respecting interviewees’ constitutional rights.

Citation

Van Graan, C.L., Roos, V. and Katjene, M. (2024), "Commercial forensic interviewing in the South African context: the Ponaletso CFI framework", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-03-2024-0098

Introduction

Commercial forensic practitioners (FPs) play a central role in commercial forensic investigations because they apply various skills and expertise in variety of fields in obtaining admissible evidence they may present in a court of law (Institute of Commercial Forensic Practitioners, 2024; McIntyre et al., 2014; Slabbert et al., 2023). A commercial forensic investigation, as well as the processes followed in gathering admissible evidence, should take place within the ambits of the legal framework of a particular country (Van Graan et al., 2024d). A crucial skill is the ability to conduct effective commercial forensic interviews (CFIs) with multiple stakeholders, including suspects and witnesses (such as third parties, e.g. suppliers) (Bekker et al., 2024; Van Graan et al., 2024a, 2024b; Vorster et al., 2016).

Several interviewing techniques are applied in CFIs which can broadly be categorised as guilt-presumptive or investigative. Guilt-presumptive techniques (such as the Reid technique) aim to elicit an admission of guilt from the interviewee at all costs (Kozinski, 2017). However, aligned with the legal prescripts in South Africa, two more appropriate, investigative interviewing techniques have been identified: the PEACE model and person-centred approach (PCA). These techniques respect the confines of the law and aim to elicit the facts of a matter and not necessarily on obtaining a confession (Snook et al., 2014; Van Graan et al., 2024d, 2024a). Moreover, complex relational dynamics in a CFI may influence the interactive processes between FPs and interviewees (Van Graan et al., 2024b, 2024c). What is still unclear from research is what an integrated framework should consist of to guide the relational dynamics in CFIs in extracting admissible evidence from interviewees. Accordingly, this article aims to present a CFI framework to explain the relational dynamics conducive to interaction involving FPs and interviewees in the commercial forensic investigative context. Moreover, many FPs operate in the private sector and have a unique and limited mandate when compared with those in the police (McIntyre et al., 2014). Hence, this study focuses on FPs in the private forensic context.

Method to develop a conceptual framework

A conceptual framework presents the link between literature, methodology and results (Jabareen, 2009). It differs from a theoretical framework in that it does not encompass a broad, universal view of behaviours, but rather focuses on certain behaviours in specific contexts (Earp and Ennett, 1991). In this study, the behaviours refer specifically to the interactions between the FP and multiple stakeholders in a CFI context. A conceptual framework also differs from a conceptual model – which is often confused for frameworks – in the sense that a model represents an appropriate flexible approach with a strategic plan of action (Leshem and Trafford, 2007). A conceptual framework, however, functions on a higher level of abstraction. Conceptual frameworks offer many advantages: they are effective in defining research questions, involve minimal resources and are accurate in indicating where interventions in specific contexts should occur (Pavao-Zuckerman, 2000). The elements of conceptual frameworks are usually displayed in illustrated form (Heemskerk et al., 2003), and developed by applying a grounded theory approach.

Grounded theory approach

A grounded theory approach was used because it suggests the systematic gathering and analysis of data to create a new theory (Charmaz, 2006) or, in this case, to develop a conceptual framework. An interpretative perspective was applied to develop the conceptual framework. The following steps were applied, drawing on Morse and Richards (2012). Literature revealed CFI interviewing techniques – the PEACE model and PCA in Phase 1, and the observed relational dynamics and detail of the relational qualities (observable verbal and nonverbal messages) between the FPs and interviewees were identified in Phases 2 and 3. The researcher then deconstructed and categorised the concepts in terms of “effective” and “ineffective”, according to the reactions of the interviewees. Deconstruction entailed discovering each concept’s “main attributes, characteristics, assumptions, and role” (Jabareen, 2009, p. 54). Next, the final concepts were synthesised, re-synthesised and presented as the Ponaletso CFI framework for application in the CFI context. This conceptual framework will be revised as appropriate, according to feedback received at seminars and conferences, and following comments on this article.

Data informing the development of a conceptual framework

Data were collected in three phases:

1. a scoping review (Article 1: see Van Graan et al., 2024a);

2. direct observations (Article 2: see Van Graan et al., 2024b); and

3. semi-structured interviews (Article 3: see Van Graan et al., 2024c) with FPs and interviewees.

This study represents a concluding article (based on these three phases) and should be read in conjunction with the aforementioned articles. In Phase 1, the theoretical underpinnings of the PEACE model and PCA were obtained after a scoping review had been conducted. PEACE is an acronym for preparation and planning (P) before the CFI; engage and explain (E) at the beginning; account, clarify and challenge (A), whereby FPs challenge any discrepancies; closure (C) of the interview at the end; and evaluation (E) of the CFI by the FPs themselves (see Scott et al., 2015; Snook et al., 2014). The PCA, on the other hand, focuses on creating an optimal interpersonal context by applying the relational qualities of interactional pattern analysis (IPA) and provides guidelines on when to ask open- or closed-ended questions. The PEACE model has a clear structure in approaching the CFI, whereas the PCA proposes effective relational qualities to facilitate an optimal interpersonal context for obtaining information in a commercial forensic investigative setting, which may be intimidating (Van Graan et al., 2024a). Merging the PEACE model and the PCA provides a useful structure for application in the South African context because they are both investigative and the strengths of each technique complement the other in achieving structure and process (Van Graan et al., 2024a). In Figure 1, the integrated structure is presented.

Phase 2 consisted of two parts. Firstly, a direct observation checklist, which can be applied in observing the actions and reactions between FPs and interviewees, was developed. Secondly, the checklist was applied to CFIs. In terms of the interactional approach (see Vorster et al., 2013; Watzlawick et al., 2011), when two individuals interact, subjective experiences (impact) result from the actions and reactions between them. Actions are observable verbal and nonverbal messages that constitute relational qualities (also known as variables) (see Roos, 2016; Vorster et al., 2016). Relational qualities derived from the PCA and IPA are relevant in the CFI context (Van Graan et al., 2024c), and are briefly presented in Table 1 (see Du Plooy, 2014, 2019; Roos, 2018; Roos and Wheeler, 2016; Vorster et al., 2013 for a detailed discussion).

In Phase 3, observational data from Phase 2 were complemented with interview data obtained from FPs and interviewees after participating in CFIs (see Van Graan et al., 2024c). The assumption is that the reciprocal and continuous interactions between FPs and interviewees emerge as relational dynamics (Cavé, 2024; Vorster, 2011). Relational dynamics describe the communication (verbal and nonverbal) between two individuals when they interact with each other (Vorster, 2011). Relational dynamics are greatly influenced by the FPs’ interpersonal styles (Watzlawick et al., 2011). These consist of clusters of relational qualities and can be either effective or ineffective (see Du Plooy, 2014; Van Graan et al., 2024b, 2024c). Effective interpersonal styles inform effective relational dynamics and contribute to obtaining admissible evidence. Findings from Phases 2 and 3 of the research suggest the following interpersonal styles that emerged as being effective:

• creating a clear context for the CFI;

• expressing cognitive and emotional empathy accurately;

• confirming the anxiety (emotions) of the interviewee in the context of a CFI;

• being authentically themselves, and aligning verbal and nonverbal messages (congruence);

• expressing warmth and unconditional positive regard (UPR) for the interviewee;

• displaying a flexible approach, with appropriate physical and emotional distance; and

• leading the interview in a complementary relationship with the FP in control (Van Graan et al., 2024b, 2024c).

These effective interpersonal styles displayed by the FPs resulted in the interviewee engaging in the CFI in an open manner, willing to share information. In contrast, ineffective interpersonal styles (e.g., not defining the relationship clearly for the interviewee, being judgemental, lacking confirmation) elicited reactions from interviewees that indicated the subjective impact of frustration and resulted in interviewees disengaging and sharing irrelevant information.

By applying the data obtained from Phases 2 and 3, the Ponaletso CFI framework has been developed and is proposed for application by FPs in the commercial forensic investigative context in South Africa.

The Ponaletso commercial forensic interview framework

“Ponaletso” is the Sotho word for “transparency” (Pharos Online, 2024, np), which refers to “the quality of being transparent; perviousness to light […]” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2024). Sotho (also known as Sesotho) is one of 12 official languages of South Africa, with more than 4.6 million native speakers and up to 7 million people using it as a lingua franca (Statistics South Africa, 2023; Sobane, 2017). It is also one of the official languages of the multilingual North-West University (NWU) – the institution from which this research springs. Using “Ponaletso” to describe the proposed integrated CFI technique is therefore appropriate for the unique South African forensic context.

Associated concepts of the word “Ponaletso” are linked to the investigative nature of CFI techniques (including the PEACE model and PCA), focusing on adopting an open and clear approach when interviewing multiple stakeholders (Slabbert et al., 2023). Transparency is a synonym for “pellucidity”, which, in turn, means “the quality of being clear and transparent; free from obscurity and easy to understand; the comprehensibility of clear expression” (Vocabulary.com, 2024). Moreover, the conceptual framework for relational dynamics is built on the premise that an unambiguous, open and transparent approach on the part of FPs is essential for obtaining admissible evidence in a forensic context (Vorster et al., 2016).

Presentation of the Ponaletso commercial forensic interview framework

The framework is divided into five components (from left to right in Figure 2):

1. stage of the interview;

2. structure;

3. type of questions;

4. interpersonal style of the FP; and

5. relational dynamics (actions and reactions).

The stage of the interview refers to: “before”, “during” (beginning, middle and end) and “after” the interview. “Before” deals with FPs’ preparation and planning, whereas “during” is divided into a beginning, in which the FPs engage and explain; a middle in which the FPs account, clarify and challenge; and the end, “after”, which is about closure. The structure part includes the five phases as set out in the PEACE model: preparation and planning; engage and explain; account, clarify and challenge; closure; and evaluation. The structure is not applied rigidly and makes provision for FPs to return to previous phases if information from interviewees is unclear. Types of questions draw on the PCA and are divided into closed- and open-ended questions applicable to each phase of the interview. The appropriate use of closed- and open-ended questions is important, as it determines whether the FP can manoeuvre effectively for control in the interview. If the FP, for example, seeks an overview of intricate operational systems in the business under discussion at the start of the interview, open-ended questions are more suitable, because they allow the interviewee to talk freely (within the conceptual boundary of the interview) about core aspects of the operations. Closed-ended questions would be more appropriate once the FP has understood the overall workings of the department (in which the investigation is taking place) but needs clarification on specific issues.

Interpersonal styles of FPs comprise clusters of effective relational qualities appropriate for the different phases during the CFI. Confirming the interviewee’s emotions in the context of the CFI, for example, is relevant during the engage and explain phase, because it conveys a message that what the interviewee is saying matters and it will most likely elicit a reaction from the interviewee, thus indicating engagement with the FP. If the FP effectively applies the relevant clusters of relational qualities during the respective phases of the interview, relational dynamics (observable as actions by the FPs and reactions of the interviewees) are at play, and when effective, there is a greater likelihood of obtaining admissible evidence from the CFI. The combined phases and relational qualities informing relational dynamics are presented in Figure 2 as the Ponaletso CFI framework.

Application of the Ponaletso commercial forensic interview framework

The application of the Ponaletso CFI framework calls for a systematic approach: there is a clear phase, with a structure indicating the type of questions to be asked, in combination with the FP’s interpersonal styles and consequent relational dynamics, as presented in Figure 2, from left to right. Each component informs the next. In practice, it means the following.

Before the interview, the FP prepares and plans for the interview (see the PEACE model). This involves informing him-/herself of the facts of the case before the interview takes place. When the interview starts (beginning stage), the engage and explain phase is initiated. The FP engages with the interviewee and explains the context and reason for the CFI (see Walsh and Bull, 2011). The interviewee is also informed that the interview is voluntary and that his/her constitutional rights will be respected (Constitution see South Africa, 1996). The FP asks open-ended questions and encourages the interviewee to speak freely. The FP creates a clear context for the CFI, empathises with the emotions of the interviewee and confirms that what they share in the interview matters, displaying warmth and unconditional acceptance of the interviewee and remaining congruent/authentically themselves. FPs who display a combination of these relational qualities are likely to demonstrate effective interpersonal styles, contributing to effective relational dynamics in which interviewees can engage in an open manner, willing to share information.

During the middle stage of the CFI, the account, clarify and challenge phase of the PEACE model is followed, and two steps are applied:

1. allow the interviewee to give information from their perspective of the events without interruption (account and clarify); and

2. identify any inconsistencies which the FP could use to confront the interviewee with the facts (challenge).

During the first step, the FP follows a nondirective approach and asks open-ended questions. The FP demonstrates empathy, UPR and congruence to elicit reactions indicating engagement on the part of interviewees and their openness to share information. The FP remains flexible, adopting an appropriate physical and emotional distance to elicit a subjective impact from interviewees in that they experience interpersonal safety. In the second step, the FP directs the interview (taking control) with closed-ended questions to challenge any discrepancies in the interviewees’ accounts. The FP continues to display relational qualities of empathy, warmth and congruence to ensure interpersonal safety and elicit appropriate answers from interviewees.

The closure phase of the PEACE model occurs at the end of the interview and involves the FP summarising the interview and giving interviewees the opportunity to clarify or provide additional information. The FP uses open-ended questions during this stage, and displays empathy, UPR and congruence to preserve rapport and elicit a reaction from interviewees showing that they remain engaged. Before the interview ends, the FP creates a clear context of the process to follow, such as further discussions that may flow from the interview. He/she confirms the interviewees by expressing appreciation for the information shared. By doing this, the FP preserves the interviewees’ dignity. The last phase of the PEACE model, evaluation, applies after the interview has taken place. The FP and/or their managers reflect on the CFI and give feedback when a safe interpersonal context has been established for them. FPs are confirmed and receive empathy and UPR from the reviewers and are asked to evaluate their own performance first: what they think went well, what aspects they could learn from and what they would do differently in the future. The reviewers confirm the FPs’ feedback and add their own observations of what worked well and what they suggest as developmental goals for future CFIs. This closure, in turn, values the dignity of FPs from a relational perspective.

Trustworthiness of the Ponaletso commercial forensic interview framework

The grounded theory approach followed in developing the Ponaletso CFI framework is embedded in three core aspects, according to Birks and Mills (2015):

1. the researcher’s expert knowledge and research abilities;

2. methodological correspondence (also referred to as methodological congruence) with the overall objective of the research; and

3. procedural accuracy in the application of the methodology.

The researcher of this study is an expert in the transdisciplinary fields of forensic accounting, including CFIs, with more than ten years’ experience in forensic research, seven of which are in human behaviour and CFIs. Methodological correspondence is achieved when there is congruence and a logical flow between the researcher’s philosophical viewpoint, the aim of the study and the method chosen to conduct the research (Tie et al., 2019). In this study, the researcher’s position is informed by the grave and pressing need to combat continued high levels of financial crime [PwC’s Global Economic Crime and Fraud Survey (PwC), 2022] and consequently to develop a practical guide for CFIs that is easy and effective for FPs to use in the South African context, and further afield. The grounded theory approach combines existing theoretical frameworks and data from research to develop a conceptual framework for CFIs. Procedural accuracy involves effective capturing and management of the steps executed in obtaining relevant data to develop the framework (Birks and Mills, 2015). In this study, a clear audit trail and the decisions that informed the development of the conceptual framework were transparently reported. The combination of the PEACE model and PCA with the relational dynamics that emerge from relevant relational qualities was discussed (Article 2) and aligned with the legal context in South Africa. Data from observations of CFIs in real-time, and of interviews after CFIs with FPs and interviewees, yielded rich data (Article 3). Multiple perspectives (literature, observations and interview data) added to the notion of crystallisation (see Ellingson, 2009), which provides a “deepened, complex, thoroughly partial, understanding of the topic” (Richardson, 2000, p. 934).

Contributions

The Ponaletso CFI framework contributes to the field by presenting a practical guide for conducting CFIs applicable in the South African legal context. A bottom-up approach was applied, and inductively obtained findings gathered from the literature study, direct observations and interviews informed the development of the conceptual framework. The Ponaletso CFI framework presents a clear structure in addition to processes to enhance FPs’ effective interviewing skills, recognising their contributions to the relational dynamics at play between them and interviewees involved in a CFI. To this end, the framework provides a structure guiding the CFI, but also considers an optimal interpersonal context and how to navigate towards effective relational dynamics with the ultimate goal to acquire admissible evidence from the interview. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to create an integrated conceptual framework applicable to forensic interviews in South Africa.

Conclusion

FPs aim to obtain admissible evidence from multiple stakeholders during commercial forensic investigations by applying their interviewing skills in a CFI. In the dynamic interplay of actions and reactions (verbal and nonverbal messages) between FPs and interviewees, FPs inform the relational dynamics by displaying effective or ineffective interpersonal styles. The impact (subjective experience) of FPs’ interpersonal styles on interviewees contributes to the quality of the information obtained in a CFI; when there is no clear structure and FPs display ineffective interpersonal styles, it often results in a lack of admissible evidence. However, when FPs know how to guide the interview by applying relevant questions at the appropriate phases of the CFI and when they are able to navigate towards effective relational dynamics, they obtain admissible evidence while at the same time preserving the constitutional rights of interviewees. The Ponaletso CFI framework presents a useful structure for achieving these goals, is easy to apply and can support FPs to become more efficient in their respective functions of combating financial crime: by detecting, investigating and preventing it by obtaining admissible evidence while maintaining the constitutional rights of interviewees.

Figures

Figure 1.

An integrated forensic interviewing technique: the PEACE model and person-centred approach

Figure 2.

The Ponaletso CFI framework

Table 1.

Description of relational qualities relevant to commercial forensic interviews

Index	Relational quality	Description
1.	Empathy	Accurate cognitive (taking the perspective of the other) or affective (emotions) understanding of an interviewee’s situation, feelings or circumstances, which FPs express accurately with verbal and nonverbal cues (Meyer et al., 1997; Roos and Wheeler, 2016)
2.	Congruence	The FPs’ verbal or nonverbal messages support each other, are aligned and communicate no trace of false pretence (Vorster, 2011)
3.	Unconditional positive regard (UPR)	The FPs’ total and unconditional acceptance of the interviewee, as well as the interviewee’s experiences and who they are, drawing on Rogers (1987)
4.	Context	The FP creates an interpersonal space as a conceptual boundary in which a CFI takes place, and which determines the meaning of the interaction (Vorster, 2011). The context within which an interview is taking place directly influences the meaning of what is being said to the interviewer (Watzlawick et al., 2011)
5.	Defining the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee	Three types of relational definitions are distinguished: a complementary relationship, with one person taking a one-up and the other adopting a one-down position; a parallel-defined relationship, in which two people alternate in taking control (e.g. between friends); and a symmetrically defined relationship, in which there is a continuous struggle for control between the two individuals interacting. In a CFI, the context determines that the FP should control the interview, with the interviewee conforming to the relational definition and providing answers/information (Jackson, 1965)
6.	Clarity of self-presentation	The FP’s verbal and nonverbal cues are clear, coherent and understandable (Vorster, 2011)
7.	Confirmation	An FP conveys the message to the interviewee that what is being said matters and is important to the investigation (Vorster et al., 2013)
8.	Circular or linear approach to the CFI	The FP adopts the position that there are different viewpoints (not only their own) and that they are also informing the relational dynamics by their interactions in the interview, by adopting a circular approach (Vorster et al., 2013)
9.	Degree of interpersonal flexibility/rigidity	The extent to which someone can alternate behaviour flexibly depending on the interviewee’s reaction or the context in which the CFI takes place (Vorster, 2011)
10.	Distance	Emotional distance or closeness may vary according to the interpersonal context and can be too distant or too close (Du Plooy, 2014)
11.	The potential for rejection (hostility) or acceptance from the interviewee	An FP’s interpersonal style (combination of various relational qualities) can elicit rejection or acceptance. For example, FPs who display incongruence or are hostile or disapproving of the actions of an interviewee tend to elicit rejection. FPs who demonstrate transparency, flexibility and active listening are more likely to elicit acceptance from the interviewee (Vorster, 2011)
12.	Adequacy of problem solving	FPs who are able to solve interpersonal problems in the interview (e.g. when the interviewee takes control, by manoeuvring control back and keeping the focus of the CFI in mind) are more effective (Vorster et al., 2013)

Source: Table created by authors