Så fångas de misstänktas ord. Förhör och dokumentationspraktiker på Skattebrottsenheten

Abstract

This aim of this thesis is to contribute to our understanding of the factors shaping institutional talk and documentation, using empirical data from the field of investigative interviewing. The study analyses how Swedish tax fraud investigators are instructed to conduct and record interviews with suspects – in policy documents and training programmes – and contrasts this with the reality of their actual everyday practice. Special attention is given to how investigators reason about the goals and rules of their work and about what constitutes good practice. The study draws on a body of material consisting of policy documents, training materials, audio-recorded investigative interviews with their corresponding written reports, and questionnaires and interviews with investigators and prosecutors, where they are asked about their views and practice. The results show that the goals and rules formulated by authorities and teachers of investigative interviewing are numerous and sometimes contradictory. For example, investigators are told both that a good interview requires full attention and that a written interview report should be ready by the end of the interview. Furthermore, prosecutors generally ask investigators to produce succinct interview reports, but when needed as evidence in court, verbatim transcripts are the best. However, verbatim transcript and audio-recordings are often avoided, because they are time-consuming and also may contain unnecessary private details about the suspect. The investigators handle the contradictions by developing documentation strategies that they personally believe make for a good compromise solution. However, their individual compromise solutions and views on what constitutes best practice differ somewhat from each other, because investigators rank the importance of the goals and rules slightly differently. In fact, some investigators deviate from central policy in order to reach what they perceive as the most important goals. It also becomes clear that some general commonsense norms and values, such as respecting the integrity and private life of the interviewees, override institutional interests in some instances.