Defining the scope, team and investigation plan

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: prepare a clearly bounded and independent investigation mandate. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. An internal investigation seeks to establish facts methodically while respecting the rights involved. It does not replace the authorities or grant police powers to the team. These organisational techniques are good practice and must be adapted to applicable employment, disciplinary, criminal and data protection rules. Under section 27, provide the person concerned a fair opportunity to state their position and evidence, including through counsel; delay of initial information is exceptional and justified.

A plan defines questions, the authorised team and deadlines. Under section 27, the person concerned receives detailed information at the start; exceptionally justified delay is possible where immediate notice would frustrate investigation. Provide a fair opportunity to state their position, including through counsel, and support it with evidence.

Apply the following rule: Section 20 accepts unlawful or suspected unlawful acts, omissions and other abuses. Eligibility to report differs from entitlement to every safeguard. Section 45 requires the statutory route, information obtained in a work-related context and reasonable grounds to believe it true when reported. Apart from section 43 assistance, subchapter 8 protection also requires the section 48 EU subject matter, specified EU restrictive-measures infringements added in 2025, or reasonable grounds to believe the matter falls within that scope. Apply the section 48(2) exclusions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Turn the account into investigation questions. Identify sources, actions, dependencies and risks. Set review points and access rules. Separate investigation from any disciplinary decision and respect its specific procedure. The objective is to establish whether particular facts occurred and under what conditions, rather than to prove a person's guilt. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

Management asks for an investigation into everything wrong with procurement. The team defines three questions: who changed a criterion, when it changed and how it affected selection. Other indications may justify extending scope later through a documented decision. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Which formulation is more appropriate: proving favouritism or establishing how the purchasing decision was made? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

The second, because it does not presume the finding. The plan must allow the allegation to be supported or contradicted. If relevant new facts emerge, scope may be reviewed with appropriate reasons and authority.

One mistake to avoid is: starting an investigation without boundaries, an owner or specific questions.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically classified as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Read the facts and apply the national scope, context and conditions for protection. A form label helps organise information but does not determine the legal framework. If the case falls outside the regime, identify an appropriate route without unnecessarily disclosing information.