3. Don't Underestimate the Case. A CID command letter dated 3 Dec 85, included a copy of
an FBI report pertaining to procurement fraud. On page 2, it notes that these cases are "complex and
massive." The investigator "must have a working knowledge of the basic technology or industrial
process involved." Also, you may be dealing with "an incredible bulk of evidence and a large number of
potential witnesses (who are almost all bright, technically proficient, advised by corporate counsel, and
capable of easily deflecting the inquiry of an unprepared investigator)." If we are dealing with a false
claim, you need to understand the claims process. Approaching a case of contract fraud without an
understanding of the procurement system is not likely to produce any success. If the suspect has a
PhD in history, you need to know a lot more about that field than you otherwise would. In such a case,
you might need to find out what the suspect's specialty is, and whether he has written in the area.
Remember the case of the museum curator and the 100 year old dresses. To tackle a case like that,
you need a basic understanding of clothing value.
4. Don't Underestimate the Suspect. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) report notes on
page 9: "Remember the nature of the case and the level of intelligence and sophistication of the
witness. Interviews can easily produce misleading information and clever interviewees can create
exculpatory information." The suspect may have a PhD and may be an expert in computer science,
American history, etc. The FBI report states an page 6: "Do not hesitate to bring agency personnel
into the investigation." They can, of course, "pinpoint suspect areas."
5. Develop an Investigative Plan. In other words, where are you going? The FBI report
explains on page 6 that "too many of these investigations have begun by the shotgun approach-go do
400 interviews and take 50 people through the grand jury, creating an additional mound of unfocused
testimony and interview notes." Don't just generate reams of paperwork; focus your investigation.
What are you trying to prove? Unless you know that, how are you ever going to prove it? Develop a
theory of what the crime was; i.e., how did the system break down? What did the suspect do? Now, it
will be much easier to go about developing evidence in order to prove the crime. The alternative is to
develop a large volume of "evidence" that doesn't really show anything.
6. Work with the Department of Justice (DOJ). There is a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOJ regarding the prosecution of economic
crimes. An 18 April 1985 letter from CID command states that CID units "should establish close
working relationships with the U.S. Attorneys or their assistants responsible for prosecuting federal
crimesin conjunction with the supporting staff judge advocate." This is consistent with DOD Directive
5525.7 (January 22, 1985) which states: "It is DOD policy to maintain effective working relationships
with the DOJ in the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving the programs, operations, or
personnel of the Department of Defense." Where DOJ has assumed investigative responsibilities,
"DOD investigative agencies should seek to participate jointly with DOJ investigative agencies