Certified Fraud Examiner 2025 – 400 Free Practice Questions to Pass the Exam

Discussing prior deceptions can be an effective strategy when diffusing a suspect's alibi, especially in situations where evidence is scarce. This approach allows the investigator to subtly challenge the credibility of the suspect's claims without directly confronting them, which could lead to defensiveness or stonewalling. By referencing past dishonest behavior, the investigator can create doubt in the suspect's mind about the plausibility of their current alibi. This technique leverages existing knowledge about the suspect's history to build a case for skepticism, encouraging the individual to reconsider their current narrative.

This strategy also provides an indirect way to gather more information. As the suspect reflects on their previous deceptions, they may inadvertently reveal inconsistencies or additional details about their current alibi, which can provide the investigator with avenues to further probe or validate information. In essence, discussing prior deceptions establishes a psychological framework where the suspect may feel compelled to adjust their statements in light of their past behavior, leading to a more truthful exchange.

In comparison, confronting the suspect directly may provoke a defensive reaction, limiting the flow of useful information. Ignoring their responses could leave the investigator without critical insights, while bringing in a witness could further complicate the situation and should be used only when there is more substantial