Guide to conducting internal investigations: governance and decision-making

This is the second of six instalments serialising the ‘Guide to conducting internal investigations’, on best practices and guidance for those conducting or overseeing investigations in both the United Kingdom and the United States. In this second part, Jake McQuitty and Charles Hastie shed light on governance and decision-making, along with who should investigate.

Charles Hastie leads the regulatory advisory function at Clutch Group. During previous employment at the Financial Conduct Authority, he was responsible for the supervision of a large investment bank and spent several years in the Enforcement Division managing a wide range of regulatory and criminal markets cases. Other experience includes being a senior internal auditor at hedge fund manager Man Group plc and a derivatives broker on a number of trading desks. Jake McQuitty is a partner at TLT Solicitors, where he leads the investigations and enforcement team. Previously, he was in-house legal counsel at a major global bank through most of the financial crisis and oversaw a significant portfolio of global investigations and enforcement matters. Jake originally qualified as a barrister where he honed many of his forensic skills, particularly the handling of difficult witnesses.

1. Governance and decision-making

The person or group of persons tasked with governance and oversight of internal investigations, from now on referred to as ‘the decision-maker’, will need to make decisions critical to the direction, scope and outcome of the investigation. These include decisions on whether to broaden, narrow or stop the investigation, whether to refer issues to separate functions such as Human Resources for further action, or whether to report findings to an external agency. The decision-maker will also need to operate general oversight to ensure that the investigation is being conducted in a reasonable, proportionate and timely manner. [1]