Desktop Investigation 101 – Telephone Interviewing Techniques for Credit Card Fraud

By Brian C. Jayne

The nature of the credit card industry, being geographically widespread with an emphasis on making credit card purchases as easy as possible, invites dozens of fraud schemes.  Telephone interviews have proven to be a very cost effective and efficient means to investigate many credit card frauds.  This article will present some fundamental telephone interviewing techniques that are specifically designed to elicit more meaningful, complete and truthful information during a telephone interview.  To simplify this discussion, the person being interviewed will be referred to as a “customer,” even though this person could represent a non-card holder, a store employee, a family member, etc.

ESTABLISHING RAPPORT

Every telephone interview begins with the investigator first identifying himself or herself and stating a purpose for the call.  Especially because there is no face-to-face interaction during a telephone interview, the investigator needs to spend the necessary time to establish a trusting relationship with the person being interviewed.  No investigative questions should be asked until a level of rapport has been established.

Picture yourself as a deceptive customer.  You have falsely reported the theft of your credit card or have knowledge about who made a particular purchase using your card.  Someone calls you wanting to know more about the circumstances surrounding your missing card.  Shortly after answering the phone, you must make a decision either to tell the truth to this person or to lie and hope that your deception is not detected.  A significant consideration in making that decision will be your initial assessment of the person who is calling you.  If the interviewer comes across as authoritative, judgmental and condescending, you will almost certainly choose to lie.

With this in mind, the investigator should be perceived by the person being interviewed as a friendly, non-authoritative and non-judgmental person.  One way to accomplish this is for the investigator to avoid the use of titles and of descriptive words like “fraud,” “investigation” and “theft.”  In addition, the investigator’s tone of voice should not be condescending or threatening.  For example, the following introduction is bound to make a customer feel quite defensive and encourage deception:

“This is investigator Smith from the fraud division of ABC card.  We are in the process of investigating a claim that your credit card was stolen and I need to ask you some questions about that.”

An introduction that is more likely to encourage truthfulness is:

“Hello, my name is George Smith from ABC card.  I am in the process of reviewing your stolen credit card report and I would appreciate it if you could help me out on a few things.  Do you have some time to talk with me this morning?”

Following this introduction, further rapport can be established by starting with non-threatening background questions, such as asking the customer to confirm the spelling of his name, his present address, occupation, etc.  This will allow the customer to feel comfortable responding to the investigator’s questions and will provide the investigator an opportunity to make some important initial assessments about the customer such as his ability to understand English, his communication style and his underlying attitudes.  In general, a truthful customer’s attitude can be described as cooperative, helpful, concerned and composed.  A deceptive customer, on the other hand, may initially come across as uncooperative, unconcerned, guarded or inappropriately angry

THE INITIAL OPEN QUESTION

One of the principles of effective telephone interviewing is to learn as much from the customer as possible without committing that person to denial early during the interview.  To understand this concept, assume that the person being interviewed used a stolen credit card to make a purchase.  If the interviewer starts out with a question such as, “Did you buy a stereo system on the 15^th of last month using a stolen credit card?” the customer might tell the truth and respond, “Yes, can you direct me to the closest police station where I can turn myself in?”  However, this is not likely.  More probably, the customer will respond, “No, I did not.”

At this point, the customer is “committed to denial” on all subsequent interview questions; he must answer each of the remaining interview questions consistent with his earlier denial.  This greatly reduces the amount of meaningful information the customer may otherwise have provided.

The most productive investigative question to start out a telephone interview is one that is open.  For example, “Please tell me everything related to your missing credit card.”; “Please tell me everything you know about the March 5^th purchase made on your credit card.”  Open questions of this nature do not commit the customer to denial but rather allow the customer to include or exclude whatever information he chooses  within his response.  Because no one chooses to lie unnecessarily, it is unlikely for customers to include false information in a response to an open question.  For this reason, the investigator should listen carefully not only to what the customer says, but also to what he chooses not to include in his response.  Compare the following two responses to the question, “Please tell me everything you know about the purchase last month of a camcorder charged to your credit card.”

1. “Well, when I got my statement at the end of the month, I saw this purchase of $1280 for a camcorder bought at Best Town Electronics about two weeks ago that I didn’t make.  I only made two purchases with my card last month; the restaurant charge on the 5^th and a clothing purchase on the 15^th.  After getting the bill, I looked for my credit card and it was not in my wallet or anywhere else in my apartment.  The last time I saw it was on the 15^th, and I don’t know when or where it got stolen or lost.”

2. “I can’t tell you too much.  When I got my bill, I noticed this charge for a camcorder.  I checked my wallet and my card’s not there so someone must have bought that camcorder with my card.”

The first response contains much more detailed information than the second.  In addition, the first customer offers the unsolicited denial that he didn’t make the purchase for the camcorder.  He also clearly states that the last time he saw his card was on the 15^th of the month and confirms that the card was, in fact, lost or stolen.

The second customer, on the other hand, offers a very sketchy version of events.  He never denies making the purchase himself.  Rather, he implies that because his credit card is not presently in his wallet,  someone (else) must have made that purchase.  In truth, all he is saying is that someone bought a camcorder using his card.  That someone could very well have been the customer.

The investigator should allow the customer to fully respond to the initial open question without interruptions.  If the response sounds shallow or incomplete, the investigator can encourage further information by stating a single word like, “Okay,” or “Alright” followed by silence.  Most customers will fill in the silence by continuing on with the account.

ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS

Following the customer’s response to the initial open question, the investigator should go back and clarify the initial response.  These questions, again, are phrased in an open manner allowing the customer to choose whatever information he wants to include or exclude from his response.  There are three categories of clarification questions.  The first asks the customer to provide further information concerning some aspect of his initial response.  An example of this type of question would be, “Please tell me more about the purchases you did make with your credit card last month.” or, “Other than yourself, who else has access to your credit card?”

The second category of clarification question elicits reasons as to how something happened or why the customer did or did not do certain things.  An example of this type of question would be, “How do you think someone was able to take your credit card?”, or, “Why didn’t you notice that your card was missing earlier?”  In addition to listening for the logic of the customer’s explanation, the investigator should be alert for reasons offered as a “list.”  An example of “listing” behavior to the question about why the customer didn’t notice that his credit card was missing earlier is as follows:

“Well, first of all, I don’t use my card very often, and second, sometimes my girlfriend will take my card and use it.  So if it’s not in my wallet, I sometimes assume that she’s got it.  Third, I had no reason to believe it was missing because it’s usually in my wallet and my wallet wasn’t missing.”

Reasons offered as a list of possibilities should tell the investigator that the customer felt a need to mentally prepare a response to the question.  In effect, the customer thought to himself, “If I am asked this question, how should I answer it?”  This mental process leads to several possible responses which then surface as a list during the interview.  Such rehearsed responses are much more likely to come from a deceptive person.  A truthful customer, who is responding spontaneously to the question, is more likely to come up with a single explanation for something happening.

The third type of clarification question is one that elicits feelings or reactions.  Given a particular event, a truthful person can be expected to experience certain emotions or engage in predictable behaviors.  A deceptive person, on the other hand, must feign emotional states and fabricate behavioral responses to a situation or event.  During the telephone interview these responses may sound superficial or guarded.  For instance, compare the following two responses to the question, “What was your reaction when you saw the charge for the camcorder on your credit card statement?”

1. “At first I thought it must have been a mistake but I checked the account number and everything looked right.  Then I got really scared thinking that someone must have used my card so I went right to my wallet to look for it and my card wasn’t there.  I’ve never had anything like this happen to me before.  I was really angry.”

2. “Well, I believe one of the first things I did was to check my wallet to see if my card was there, and, like I said, it wasn’t so I contacted you.”

The first customer offers a realistic and credible response to discovering a fraudulent purchase.  It is significant that specific thoughts and emotional responses are included in the response (being a mistake, scared, angry).  The second response, on the other hand, sounds shallow and emotionally distant.  It is also entirely focused on behavioral responses.  This is typical of a deceptive person responding to the question, “What was your reaction when (event occurred)?”  A truthful response to this question most often includes thoughts and emotions as part of the reaction because as the person relives the event, thoughts or emotions are a significant part of it.  A deceptive person, not wanting to lie unnecessarily, often will not have the insight or desire to fabricate such emotions or thoughts; he perceives his “reaction” strictly from a behavioral perspective.

ASKING DIRECT QUESTIONS

After asking clarification questions, the investigator has elicited all the information the customer is willing to volunteer through open questions.  In many situations, a truthful customer will volunteer much of the specific investigative information needed by responding to open questions.  However, especially when interviewing a deceptive customer, there will be unresolved issues that still need to be addressed through the use of direct questions.  A direct question is generally a closed question designed to elicit very specific information.  Examples of direct questions would be:

 “Are you certain your credit card was stolen?”

 “Do you know who may have taken your credit card?”

 “Were you inside the Best Town Electronics store on the 15^th of last month?”

“Is it possible that a family member or friend might have made this purchase without your knowledge?”

The manner in which a direct question is phrased will directly influence not only the ease with which the customer can lie about it, but also the investigator’s ability to evaluate the customer’s behavioral response to the question.  The following guidelines are suggested when asking direct questions.

1. Avoid the use of legal or descriptive language.  A person guilty of credit card fraud does not want to be reminded of the possible consequences of his illegal activity.  Consequently, the question, “Did you forge Karen Jacobs’ signature on that credit card slip?” is bound to elicit a defensive denial.  On the other hand, the question, “Did you sign Karen Jacobs’ name on that credit card slip?” does not have the same negative stigma attached to it and the deceptive suspect’s response to this question may not be as guarded.

2. Limit each direct question to a single issue. Assume that a clerk obtained a customer’s credit card numbers and sold them on the street.  During the telephone interview the clerk is asked, “Did you give customers’ credit card numbers to make unauthorized purchases or give customers’ credit card numbers to anyone?”  The clerk will experience very little anxiety when responding “No, I didn’t” to this question because his denial is psychologically focused on the portion of the question to which she is telling the truth.  On the other hand, had these two questions been separated, the clerk’s response to the question about giving out customers’ credit card numbers may reveal deceptive behavior.

3. Avoid asking negative questions – The easiest question to lie to is one that expects agreement. For example, the questions, “You don’t know who may have made this purchase, do you?” or “So at the time this purchase was made, your card was already missing?” both expect agreement with the pretense contained in the question.  A deceptive customer is not bound to correct the implication of non-involvement within the interviewer’s question by stating, “You’re wrong,  I do know who made this purchase.”

4. Avoid the use of memory qualifiers.  A memory qualifier such as “Do you recall,” or “Do you remember?” weakens the psychological impact of a direct question and makes the question easier to lie to.  Compare the following two interview dialogues:

By removing the memory qualifier in the second question, the interviewer has forced the customer to accept more personal responsibility within his response.  This has resulted in the customer now exhibiting significant verbal behaviors indicative of uncertainty and possible deception.

 EVALUATING RESPONSES TO DIRECT QUESTIONS

As the previous examples illustrate, direct questions should force the customer to take a definitive position concerning key issues within the investigation.  Because of this, a deceptive customer must either tell the truth to the question, completely lie to the question or choose a response that falls somewhere between the truth and an outright lie.  There are specific behaviors an investigator can learn to recognize during a telephone interview which will help distinguish between responses that are candid and those which are less than truthful.  The following behaviors are more indicative of a truthful response:

1. Direct responses. A response is direct if it completely and unequivocally answers the interviewer’s question.

2. On-time responses.  When a customer is asked a concrete question that does not call for speculation or recall, the response should be immediately forthcoming.

3. Reinforced denials such as, “Absolutely not,” “No way,” “Not at all” or “I’m positive.”

4. Unsolicited denials.   A denial that is incorporated within a response to an open question is probably a factual statement.

Conversely, the following represent verbal clues more often associated with deception:

1. Evasive response. A response that does not completely answer the interviewer’s question.

2. Delayed responses.  A customer who takes two or three seconds to respond to a direct question is debating exactly how to answer the question.  This is an indication that the response lacks spontaneity and may contain conscious editing.

3. Bolstered denials such as, “I swear,” “As God is my witness, or “You may not believe this but…”  The deceptive customer does not believe that his denial alone sounds convincing so he bolsters it in some manner.

4. Qualified language such as “At this point in time,” “As I recall” or “I believe.”  These qualifiers remove personal responsibility from the response and are more often used by deceptive customers.

5. Repeating the question. A customer may repeat the interviewer’s question in an effort to buy time to formulate the most credible or least damaging responses.

6. Lying by referral. To avoid lying twice to the same question, during a response a customer may make references to some earlier statement or document.  For example, “As I told the other investigator, I have no idea who signed that slip.”  This customer is not denying that he knows who signed the slip, all he is saying is what he told the other investigator.

7. Decreases in pitch, rate or tone may indicate that information is being edited from a response.  The customer slows down his response delivery to provide more time to formulate the response.

CONCLUSION

The telephone interview should be used as an efficient means to obtain relevant and meaningful information to help direct the course of an investigation.  Following the telephone interview, the investigator may conclude that the customer is telling the truth and that no further investigation is warranted.  In other cases, the results of the telephone interview will generate leads for subsequent interviews or direct the investigator to pursue another avenue of the investigation

Many credit card investigations are resolved through the telephone interviewing process.  This does not necessarily mean that the customer has offered a court admissible confession of guilt; agreement to accept payment for a particular purchase is a very satisfactory resolution for many investigations.  But to reach such a resolution, the telephone interviewer must first develop a rapport with the customer, learn as much information as possible from the customer through the use of open questions, ask direct questions in a productive manner and evaluate behavioral responses to the direct questions.

 Brian Jayne holds a masters degree in the detection of deception and has been employed by John E. Reid and Associates, Inc., since 1978.  He lectures throughout the United States on detection of deception techniques, including telephone interviews.

 © Copyright 1996 Alikim Media