Case Resolution - Disclosurely Investigation Outcomes Guide

Close investigations effectively with proper findings, disciplinary actions, and reporting. Learn standards of proof, communication, and resolution best practices.

Case Resolution

Complete guide to concluding investigations and implementing outcomes appropriately.

Overview

Case resolution is the critical final phase where investigation findings are translated into actions. Proper resolution ensures:

Justice: Appropriate consequences for misconduct
Fairness: Consistent treatment across cases
Learning: Organizational improvements from findings
Closure: Reporter receives outcome feedback
Compliance: Regulatory requirements met
Prevention: Systemic issues addressed

Determining Findings

Standards of Proof

Choose the appropriate standard for your case:

Balance of Probabilities (50%+)

Standard: More likely to have occurred than not
Use For: Most employment matters, policy violations, internal investigations
Practical Meaning: If you had to decide one way or the other, which is more probable?

Clear and Convincing Evidence (75%+)

Standard: Highly probable that allegations are true
Use For: Serious misconduct, termination decisions, professional sanctions
Practical Meaning: You have strong confidence in your conclusion

Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%+)

Standard: No reasonable alternative explanation
Use For: Criminal matters (typically not internal investigations)
Practical Meaning: Virtually certain
Note: Usually not appropriate for internal investigations; refer criminal matters to authorities

Finding Categories

Substantiated

Evidence supports allegation
Standard of proof met
Violation occurred as alleged
Action warranted

Partially Substantiated

Some allegations supported by evidence
Others not proven
Mixed findings
Some action warranted

Unsubstantiated

Insufficient evidence to prove allegation
Doesn't mean allegation is false
Can't conclude either way
Often "he said, she said" situations

Unfounded/False

Evidence disproves allegation
Allegation demonstrably false
Consider if false report was intentional
Rare outcome (most are substantiated or unsubstantiated)

Inconclusive

Conflicting evidence
Unable to reach conclusion
Significant doubts remain
May warrant preventive measures even without finding

Documenting Findings

For Each Allegation:

Restate Allegation Clearly
- What specifically was claimed
- What policy/law allegedly violated
- Time period involved
Summarize Evidence
- Evidence supporting allegation
- Evidence contradicting allegation
- Credibility of sources
- Corroboration or lack thereof
State Finding
- Substantiated, unsubstantiated, etc.
- Standard of proof applied
- Level of confidence
Explain Reasoning
- Why you reached this conclusion
- What evidence was most persuasive
- What doubts considered and why overcome (or not)
- Alternative explanations considered

Example:

ALLEGATION 1: Subject submitted fraudulent expense claims by
deliberately keeping amounts just under approval threshold to
avoid review.

EVIDENCE:
Supporting:
- 47 expense claims in Q4 2023, all between £480-£495
- Same restaurant for "client dinners" 3-4x per week
- No client meeting records for dates claimed
- Witness testimony that subject ate alone
- Subject unable to name clients allegedly present

Contradicting:
- Subject claims clients prefer not to be named in records
- No explicit policy against frequent dining expenses
- Receipts appear legitimate

FINDING: Substantiated (clear and convincing evidence)

REASONING: The pattern of 47 expenses all just below the £500
approval threshold is statistically improbable absent deliberate
manipulation. Subject's inability to name even one client present
at these dinners, combined with witness observations of subject
dining alone, satisfies the clear and convincing standard. While
receipts are genuine, this proves expenses were incurred but not
that they were for legitimate business purposes as claimed.

Determining Appropriate Action

Factors to Consider

Severity of Misconduct:

Impact on victims
Financial loss to organization
Reputational harm
Legal/regulatory violations
Safety implications

Subject's Role & Seniority:

Position of trust
Fiduciary duties
Role model expectations
Access to sensitive information/assets

Intent & Mens Rea:

Deliberate wrongdoing vs. mistake
Recklessness vs. negligence
Malicious vs. misguided
Repeated vs. isolated incident

Previous Conduct:

Prior warnings or discipline
Performance history
Similar past violations
Character and credibility

Mitigating Circumstances:

Personal stress or crisis
Lack of training or guidance
Unclear policies
Following supervisor's direction
Self-reported misconduct

Aggravating Circumstances:

Cover-up attempted
Retaliation against reporter
Multiple victims
Abuse of position
Financial gain from misconduct

Organizational Precedent:

Similar past cases
Established discipline matrix
Consistency required
Progressive discipline policy

Legal & Regulatory Requirements:

Mandatory reporting to authorities
Professional license implications
Contractual obligations
Industry-specific rules

Disciplinary Action Options

Informal Resolution:

Coaching conversation
Guidance on expectations
Clarification of policies
No formal record
Use For: Minor, unintentional, first-time issues

Documented Counseling:

Formal conversation documented
Expectations clearly stated
Note placed in file
Not formal discipline
Use For: More serious or repeated informal issues

Written Warning:

Formal disciplinary action
Documents violation and consequences
Sets expectations and timeline
Stays in personnel file
Use For: Clear policy violations, or repeated counseling issues

Final Written Warning:

Serious disciplinary action
States termination may result from further violations
Specific improvement required
Close monitoring period
Use For: Serious violations or pattern of behavior

Performance Improvement Plan (PIP):

Structured improvement program
Specific goals and timeline
Regular check-ins
Consequences for non-achievement
Use For: Performance-related issues alongside misconduct

Demotion or Transfer:

Reduce responsibilities
Move to different role/department
May include salary reduction
Remove from position of trust
Use For: Loss of confidence, conflict of interest, performance issues

Suspension:

Temporary removal from work
Paid or unpaid (check employment law)
Pending investigation completion
Pending external proceedings
Use For: Serious allegations, need to preserve evidence, safety concerns

Termination for Cause:

Employment ended
Due to misconduct
May affect benefits
Reference implications
Use For: Gross misconduct, serious violations, repeated issues despite warnings

Constructive Termination:

Mutual agreement to part ways
Face-saving for both parties
Settlement agreement
Controlled messaging
Use For: Senior positions, when litigation risk high

Non-Disciplinary Actions

Additional Training:

Required courses or workshops
One-on-one coaching
Shadowing another employee
Certification requirements

Policy Changes:

Update ambiguous policies
Create new procedures
Strengthen controls
Improve communication

Process Improvements:

Fix systemic issues identified
Strengthen oversight
Add approval requirements
Improve monitoring

Team or Cultural Changes:

Restructure team
Change reporting lines
Address toxic culture
Improve communication

Restitution:

Repay misappropriated funds
Return company property
Repair damage caused
Compensate victims

Monitoring:

Increased oversight
More frequent review
Limited access/privileges
Probationary period

No Action Warranted

Sometimes appropriate response is no action:

When:

Allegation unsubstantiated
Issue already resolved
Subject no longer employed
Matter outside organization's control
Conduct not actually violation

Document Why:

Explain reasoning clearly
Note any preventive measures taken
Address reporter's concerns
Consider organizational learning

Investigation Report

Report Structure

Executive Summary (1-2 pages):

Background and complaint summary
Investigation scope
Key findings
Recommendations
Actions taken

Background (2-3 pages):

How complaint received
Parties involved (use titles, not names if possible)
Timeline of events alleged
Policies allegedly violated
Investigation objectives

Investigation Methodology (1-2 pages):

Interviews conducted
Documents reviewed
Evidence examined
Experts consulted
Limitations encountered

Findings (5-10 pages):

Each allegation addressed separately
Evidence summary
Credibility assessments
Finding for each allegation
Reasoning explained

Analysis & Conclusions (2-3 pages):

Overall assessment
Patterns identified
Systemic issues found
Root cause analysis
Contributing factors

Recommendations (2-4 pages):

Disciplinary actions proposed
Policy changes recommended
Process improvements suggested
Training needs identified
Monitoring requirements
Implementation timeline

Appendices:

Evidence index
List of interviews conducted
Relevant policies
Timeline of events
Organizational chart (if relevant)

Writing Tips

Be Clear and Concise:

Use plain language
Avoid jargon
Short paragraphs
Bullet points for lists
Headings and subheadings

Be Objective:

Stick to facts
Avoid emotional language
Don't assume motives
Present both sides
Acknowledge uncertainties

Be Thorough:

Address every allegation
Cite specific evidence
Show your reasoning
Consider counterarguments
Explain departures from precedent

Protect Confidentiality:

Use generic titles where possible
Redact unnecessary personal data
Limit distribution
Mark as confidential
Consider creating summary version

Make It Defensible:

Assume report may be disclosed
In litigation, to regulator, to media
Would your conclusions withstand scrutiny?
Is reasoning sound?
Are recommendations appropriate?

Communicating Outcomes

To the Reporter

Use secure messaging to communicate outcomes.

What to Share:

Investigation completed
Whether allegations substantiated
General nature of action taken
Changes made to prevent recurrence
Appreciation for reporting

What NOT to Share:

Specific disciplinary action
Subject's employment status
Details of investigation
Other employees' information
Confidential business information

How to Communicate:

Via secure messaging in Disclosurely
Professional and empathetic tone
Thank them for coming forward
Reassure no retaliation
Provide support resources

Template Message:

Thank you for reporting your concerns to Disclosurely. We want to
update you on the outcome of our investigation.

We have completed a thorough investigation into your report. Our
investigation [substantiated / did not substantiate / partially
substantiated] the concerns you raised.

[If substantiated]: We have taken appropriate action to address
the issues identified and prevent similar situations in the future.
While we cannot share specific details about personnel actions due
to privacy requirements, please know that we have addressed this
matter seriously and completely.

[If unsubstantiated]: While we did not find sufficient evidence to
substantiate all aspects of your report, we appreciate you bringing
your concerns to our attention. We have implemented [any preventive
measures] to address the underlying issues you identified.

We want to assure you that there will be no retaliation against you
for making this report in good faith. If you experience any behavior
that you believe to be retaliatory, please report it immediately.

Thank you again for your courage in coming forward. Employees like
you help us maintain our commitment to [values/compliance/ethics].

If you have any questions or concerns about this outcome, please
reply to this message.

To the Subject

Due Process Requirements:

In-person meeting (not email)
Attended by HR and manager
Present findings clearly
Give opportunity to respond
Explain disciplinary action
Provide appeal rights
Document meeting

Meeting Agenda:

State purpose of meeting
Summarize investigation findings
Present evidence relied upon
Allow subject to respond
Announce decision
Explain disciplinary action
Outline appeal process
Answer questions
Obtain signature on documents
Explain next steps

Documentation:

Subject signs acknowledgment
If refuses, note in file
Provide copy of warning/decision
File in personnel records
Mark as confidential

To Stakeholders

Who to Inform:

Subject's manager
Department head
HR director
Legal counsel
Compliance officer
Board/executives (if serious)
Regulators (if required)

What to Share:

Appropriate level of detail for each audience
Board: Executive summary
Regulators: Full report if required
Managers: Need-to-know basis

Confidentiality:

Limit distribution
Mark documents confidential
Secure storage
Track who received information

Implementation & Monitoring

Ensuring Action Taken

Track Implementation:

Create task list in Disclosurely
Assign responsible parties
Set deadlines
Monitor progress
Document completion

Follow-Up Actions:

Verify training completed
Confirm policy updated
Check process improvements implemented
Ensure monitoring in place
Review after set period

Preventing Retaliation

Educate:

Remind managers of anti-retaliation policy
Train on what constitutes retaliation
Emphasize consequences

Monitor:

Check in with reporter periodically
Watch for signs of retaliation
Investigate any complaints immediately
Protect reporter's confidentiality

Act Swiftly:

Take retaliation complaints seriously
Investigate immediately
Discipline retaliators severely
Remedy harm to reporter

Learning & Improvement

Debrief:

What went well in investigation?
What could be improved?
Were there process issues?
Resource needs identified?
Training gaps revealed?

Organizational Learning:

Share lessons (while protecting confidentiality)
Update procedures based on experience
Address systemic issues found
Prevent similar future violations

Knowledge Management:

Document investigation approach
Note effective techniques
Record challenges and solutions
Build institutional knowledge

Closing the Case

Final Checklist

Before changing status to Resolved:

✅ All allegations addressed ✅ Findings documented and supported ✅ Investigation report complete ✅ Recommendations made ✅ Disciplinary action determined ✅ Reporter notified of outcome ✅ Subject notified and actioned ✅ Stakeholders informed ✅ Implementation plan created ✅ Retaliation monitoring in place ✅ All evidence uploaded ✅ Case notes complete ✅ Lessons documented ✅ Compliance requirements met

Status Update

Change Status to "Resolved"
- From case detail page
- Select "Resolved" from dropdown
- Add status note summarizing outcome
Complete Outcome Fields
- Finding (substantiated, etc.)
- Action taken
- Policy changes made
- Date resolved
- Final investigator note
Notifications Sent
- Reporter automatically notified
- Internal stakeholders as configured

Case Archiving

After Resolution:

Case remains accessible
Evidence preserved
Can be reopened if new information
Included in reports and analytics

Later Archiving:

See Case Archiving for long-term storage

Related: