Effective Corporate Investigations in Europe: A Dual Perspective
Marianna Vintiadis – Fabio G. Montin
In this article, we address the issue of the increase in corporate investigations in European corporations, and the importance of adopting and implementing adequate procedures and protocols aimed at ensuring a positive outcome. First, we take the perspective of board of directors governance, the ultimate ball-carrier in these cases. We then focus on the importance of ensuring procedural integrity throughout the investigation.
Corporate Investigations: A Board-Level Governance Imperative
Fabio G. Montin
Executive Legal Leader, SWOT Legal Collaborator
In today's regulatory environment, with corporate investigations increasing exponentially and regulatory scrutiny at unprecedented levels, the role of the board in overseeing corporate investigations is not merely supervisory - it is strategic and proactive.
Boards must ensure that formal policies for internal investigations are in place, regularly updated to reflect current legislation (such as whistleblowing protections under applicable legislation and GDPR requirements, particularly regarding data minimization and legitimate interest assessments), and periodically tested through internal audits or simulations. It is essential that board members receive targeted training on the risks associated with investigations, including data breaches, whistleblowing, and conflicts of interest. Quarterly or semi-annual reporting to the board, even in aggregated form, should be established to guarantee transparency and accountability in investigative activities. To further strengthen oversight, boards should consider establishing an internal committee - such as a Control and Risk Committee or Ethics Committee - specifically tasked with supervising sensitive investigations. This committee acts as a bridge between the board, management, and external consultants, ensuring coordination with compliance and internal audit functions within the three lines of defense model, and guaranteeing that every phase of the investigation is documented and conducted according to international best practices, with independence and impartiality.
Selecting and periodically evaluating external investigative service providers should become another key board responsibility. Preference should be given to certified forensic professionals or accredited investigation specialists with proven experience. The board should conduct thorough due diligence on consultants, assessing not only technical expertise but also the absence of conflicts of interest and compliance with confidentiality and data protection standards.
This is why professional accreditation matters—not as a formality, but as a guarantee of methodological soundness. Certified forensic specialists bring more than technical skill; they bring credibility. They understand what evidence will withstand scrutiny - both in court proceedings and regulatory reviews - and how to collect it without violating privacy or employment rights.
The board's strategic choice is clear: treat corporate investigations as a core governance function, not an operational afterthought. Invest in the right expertise before you need it. Establish protocols that balance speed with defensibility. And recognize that in high-stakes matters, the quality of your investigation often determines whether you maintain reputational control and manage the situation proactively - or become subject to someone else's agenda. Effective investigation protocols not only mitigate legal risks but also preserve enterprise value and stakeholder trust.
The Rising Importance of Doing Corporate Investigations Right
Marianna Vintiadis
Partner, Forensic Investigations & Intelligence, RSM
In today's highly regulated economies - in many instances with Europe taking the lead - the way an investigation is conducted often determines its outcome more than the facts themselves. Too many cases collapse not because wrongdoing cannot be proven, but because the process of uncovering it does not withstand legal or procedural scrutiny. Evidence gathered without respecting GDPR provisions, labour law constraints, or proper forensic protocols will rarely survive the courtroom test.
Organizations under pressure to respond to allegations of misconduct sometimes turn to consultants who promise speed or discretion but lack the depth of professional accreditation or technical expertise. The result is often an incomplete or compromised evidentiary trail. Worse still, flawed investigations can expose companies to legal and reputational risk, compounding the original issue. The Equalise scandal that hit Italy last year or the earlier arrest and conviction of two Black Cube employees in Romania, exposed both the investigations firms and their clients.
A sound corporate investigation is not an ad hoc exercise; it is a forensic process. It requires licensed professionals trained to preserve digital and physical evidence correctly, document every step, and operate within a robust ethical and procedural framework. Certifications such as CFE (issued by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners) or for certain types of cases, CAMS (issued by the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists), and other internationally recognized forensic credentials are more than decorative titles---they demonstrate mastery of globally accepted standards and methodologies.
Qualified forensic specialists combine investigative skill with independence and methodological rigour. They understand the interplay between technology, data privacy, and human factors. They know when and how to engage legal counsel, how to communicate with regulators, and how to maintain objectivity even when findings may be uncomfortable.
For companies facing internal fraud, data breaches, or compliance crises, the key is choosing investigators who are not merely available, but accredited, experienced, and properly authorised. In a legal environment where procedural accuracy can be as decisive as substantive truth, the right forensic expertise is not a luxury - it is the difference between resolution and failure.
November 1, 2025