Preparing interviews and questions

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is preparing interviews and questions. By the end, you should be able to obtain information without leading the witness. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. Investigation assesses specific allegations impartially and with respect for rights. The methods are recommended organisational practice within legal limits. They do not replace courts or authorities or authorise indiscriminate monitoring.

Open neutral questions distinguish personal knowledge from inference. Interviews must not intimidate. Recording and participation safeguards need specific legal assessment.

Apply the following rule: Article 11(1) states that an anonymous disclosure is not a protected disclosure under the Act, although officers and units may receive and examine it. Article 11(3) contains a specific exception for anonymous public disclosure where the person is subsequently identified and suffers retaliation, subject to article 9(1). Explain this distinction and the channel’s actual options. Confidentiality of a known identity is not guaranteed technical anonymity.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Prepare topics, purpose and permitted recording. Ask for facts and clarify the source of knowledge. Accurately record agreement and corrections. 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.

Consider how a colleague taking over tomorrow would understand the decision. Identify the verified information and its source, who is authorised to decide and who checks the result. The record should connect the decision to the material actually used rather than repeat the whole file. State critical gaps and assign a specific action to resolve them. This makes continuity independent of one person’s memory. Apply the proposed organisational steps within legal powers. In the case, distinguish observation, conclusion and hypothesis. An observation describes available evidence, a conclusion explains what can reasonably be inferred and a hypothesis still needs checking. Do not infer motives merely from unusual behaviour. Identify which further information could change the decision and whether it can be obtained lawfully and proportionately. Incomplete knowledge justifies neither certainty of guilt nor indifference to an actual risk.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An investigator asks why the manager was bribed before bribery has been established. 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: How should the question change? 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.

Ask what was observed in the transaction and what supports the knowledge, without presuming guilt.

One mistake to avoid is: embedding an allegation in the question.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The form requests a name and identity document, while the page promises anonymity. How should it be corrected?

Check the Maltese rule and actual channel option. Do not request unnecessary identification for technical convenience. Where a particular status has conditions, explain them before submission. Correct form and information together, with lawful handling of already received data.