How to Avoid False Confessions

Fraud examiners who interview subjects in their investigations know the importance of getting a confession. As Joe Koenig, CFE, stated during the final round of breakout sessions at the 37th Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference, “confessions are the gold standard.” However, it’s equally important to know how to avoid getting a false confession. 

Koenig described a case he worked on to exonerate two wrongfully convicted prisoners. They were in jail for 20 years, and Koenig discovered they had falsely confessed. “You don’t want to be on the wrong end of a false confession,” he said. He showed statistics from recent studies indicating that close to 30% of DNA exoneration cases are false confessions, with over 35% of those involving juveniles. 

Drawing from real cases he worked on, Koenig showed attendees some ways they can identify whether a subject may be lying and how to avoid interview techniques that can lead to false confessions. 

Avoid Coercion and Contamination  

Koenig explained that coercion and contamination are some contributing factors that lead to false confessions in an interview. He said some common poor practices in interrogation include overly long interviews (especially those that last six hours or longer), false evidence ploys (saying you have evidence when you don’t) and using minimization techniques (saying something like, “Help yourself by talking”). 

He said that young people are particularly vulnerable and want to please authority figures, so fraud examiners should keep this in mind during interviews. Some people also don’t trust their own memory. These factors can lead to a false confession. 

An interviewer can contaminate an interview through their behavior. He said interviewers need to be aware of their voice and tone. He warned fraud examiners against saying things like, “Tell me to the best of your knowledge.” He said behaviors such as nodding or shaking your head while subjects give their answers can also influence what they say.  

He also suggested having one interviewer, if you can. If there are two interviewers in the interview room, subjects can be distracted by what the other interviewer is doing. Koenig recommends that if it’s necessary to have two interviewers, one should be moved off to the side so the subject isn’t distracted by them. 

 Better Investigative and Interview Strategies 

“Getting the facts requires good investigative and interview strategies,” Koenig told session attendees. He said fraud examiners need to understand what was communicated in an interview. “Often that which was not communicated is doubly important, and you need to know why.” 

He said, “Everything we communicate is the result of a decision, and what we don’t communicate is the result of a decision.” Instead of pressuring subjects during an interview, Koenig suggested letting the subject explain, and then asking them what they mean by certain words. He said you want to achieve “neutral understanding in your vocabulary.” Asking the subject what they mean can lead to a more accurate statement than simply asking accusatory questions. 

What Fraud Examiners Can Learn from Written Statements 

Another mistake that Koenig pointed out is when fraud examiners write a subject’s confession for them. He said that if a confession is written by the investigator, this is a bad policy — it contains the words of the investigator and not the words of the subject. 

Koenig suggested that interviewers write down their questions in one color of ink, and then have the subject write down their own responses in a different color of ink. He said you should explain to the interviewee what you’re doing, that you want their own words and that you’ll each get a copy of the interview. 

If you’re conducting a virtual interview, he suggested having the subject write out their statement and then send it to you. A written statement is also preferred, rather than a summary. He explained that if the fraud examiner writes the statement, the subject could refute what you write down.  

Koenig then showed session attendees examples from some of his cases where he spotted deception in written statements. As a forensic linguist, he looks for communication patterns. In one example, he shared a case where a woman came to the audit office at Chase Bank and claimed her husband was fraudulently cashing checks. Koenig interviewed him and had him write out his statement. When he examined it, he noticed the subject’s handwriting visibly changed in some sentences, and Koenig later got a confession that revealed he had been lying. 

In her written statement, another subject said things like “I am an honest person” and “Everybody who knows me knows I am a reliable and honest person.” Koenig realized she never outright denied what she was accused of. “Truthful people who are accused of stealing will deny it,” he said. 

He told session attendees that some denials are better (or more indicative of truth) than others. For example, “I deny I did it” isn’t a denial. Koenig said a better one is “I didn’t do it.” Koenig explained, “No denial or a poor denial is evidence of guilt.” 

In another example, the subject described what they did in their written statement. He wrote, “I came home,” and then “I parked the car.” Koenig noted the use of “the car” instead of “my car.” He also noted the voice in the statements changed from first-person singular active voice to passive voice. “Clarity and precision are the tools of truthful people; confusion and obfuscation are the tools of deceptive people,” he said. 

In a case where Koenig was trying to exonerate someone from a murder conviction, he had the subject write down everything he did that day. Koenig marked informal word choices in the statement, which suggested moments where the subject wasn’t under a lot of stress. He noticed missing pronouns in the sections of the narrative when the homicide occurred. The tone moved from stress-free to stressful. Koenig said it should have been moving the opposite way if the subject was innocent. 

If subjects refuse to write down statements, Koenig recommended convincing them it’s in their best interest. He said if interviewers can tell them if they’re innocent, they can show their innocence in their words. 

He warned that sometimes a confession stops further investigation and getting exculpatory evidence. He said fraud examiners need to make sure they’re getting both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.