Independent investigations are now a routine feature of the corporate, regulatory, and employment landscape. Formal investigative processes are commonly initiated in response to allegations of fraud, financial irregularity, regulatory breach, or employee misconduct.
What does a successful scope include?
In practical terms, the scope defines:
- Purpose: why the investigation is being undertaken.
- Key questions: what the investigation is intended to answer.
- Boundaries: the time frame, systems, locations, individuals, and transactions under review.
- Limitations and exclusions: what the investigation will not do and why.
- Intended use and audiences: who is expected to rely on the outputs and any foreseeable secondary uses.
Scope is not just a checklist of items to cover, but the framework against which investigative decisions are judged, with emphasis placed on whether an investigation was reasonable in scope given what was known at the time.
Key elements of a properly scoped investigation
Defining the purpose
The starting question must always be: What is this investigation for?
Common purposes include:
- Fact finding following a whistleblowing allegation.
- Assessing compliance with law, regulation, or internal policy.
- Supporting a referral to law enforcement or a regulator.
- Quantifying financial loss and identifying control failures.
Frame the key questions
Convert the purpose into specific questions that evidence can answer:
- What happened?
- Who was involved?
- When and how did it occur?
- What was the impact?
Calibrate the depth of procedures to the seriousness of the allegation and the potential impact.
Set boundaries and clearly state the limitations
Define the time frame, entities, datasets, systems, and populations in scope. Document explicit exclusions (and the rationale) so gaps are transparent and can be revisited if new information emerges.
Identifying the intended end users
The scope must take into account who may ultimately rely on the report, as they can often be used beyond their original audience. However, there is a need to be proportionate in the investigation to its intended use.
Tailoring scope to the intended end users
Internal company use (boards, audit committees, and senior management)
Investigative reports are often used to simply understand what occurred, identify control failures, and decide the next steps.
In this context, the scope should prioritise:
- clear factual findings
- transparency of methodology and sources
- practical conclusions and next steps (e.g. remediation, disciplinary processes, notifications to professional bodies or insurers).
Employment and dismissal proceedings
In disciplinary hearings and employment tribunals, the emphasis is on whether the investigation was reasonable, balanced, and fair based on what was known at the time, not whether misconduct is proven beyond doubt.
The scope should therefore:
- remain fact-finding
- avoid prejudging conclusions
- clearly distinguish evidence from inference
- be proportionate to the allegation.
Police and financial crime units
There is a much higher evidential threshold for the investigative reports used by the Police Economic Crime Units or Regional organised crime teams. While independent investigations can be used by these teams as a way of justifying that there is a case, these teams will likely do their own additional investigative work.
To aid in their use by the police and financial crime units, reports should:
- identify source documents clearly
- preserve audit trails
- separate factual findings from opinion and avoid advocacy.
Civil litigation and court proceedings
Investigation reports may later be disclosed in civil proceedings, relied upon by experts and subject to cross examination.
In these circumstances, courts will scrutinise:
- how the scope was set
- whether relevant issues were excluded without justification
- whether the investigation strayed beyond its remit.
Regulatory reviews
Regulators often assess how an investigation was designed and governed, not just its conclusions.
The scope should:
- demonstrate proportionality to the identified risk
- align with applicable regulatory standards and internal policies
- evidence governance (oversight, approvals, and rationale for inclusions/exclusions)
- provide a clear audit trail of decisions and changes to scope.
Governance and best practice for setting scope
Investigators can often be accused of not remaining independent as investigations progress.
Best practice typically includes:
- early alignment between accountants and solicitor
- board or audit committee oversight
- clear documentation of assumptions and limitations
- explicit statements of what the investigation does not conclude.
Conclusion
A well constructed scope is the backbone of a credible investigation. It protects independence, ensures proportionality, and enhances defensibility when findings are later scrutinised.
How we can help
Our Forensic Services team have worked on a significant number of investigations; we are always happy to have an initial no obligation discussion on any matters where we can add value and advice. For further information, please get in touch with your usual Crowe contact.
Contact us
