A: Absolutely. Demand is increasing as investors look to move beyond static data and gain a more nuanced understanding of individuals and organizations. Interviews extend the reach of an investigation by providing additional insight and context that cannot always be captured through records alone.
They are a long-established and trusted component of decision-making processes, and in due diligence, they are increasingly valued for their ability to assess behavior, judgment, and credibility. Even the most comprehensive investigation benefits from real-time engagement, and we consistently see interviews surface perspectives and details that materially enhance the overall assessment.
Q: What types of additional information can an interview deliver that DD may not have uncovered?
A: Interviews can reveal critical information that may not be accessible through traditional research channels. In some cases, this has included previously undisclosed legal issues due to jurisdictional or access limitations.
More broadly, interviews allow us to explore the context behind findings. This includes how events were understood at the time, the circumstances surrounding them, and how individuals responded. They enable dynamic follow-up questioning, helping to develop lines of inquiry in real time. Importantly, they also capture non-verbal cues and tone, adding another layer of insight that strengthens the overall analysis.
Q: How do interviews work in collaboration with the rest of the DD investigation?
A: The investigative process lays the foundation for effective interviews by identifying key themes, risks, and areas for deeper exploration. Our investigation and interview teams work in close coordination to ensure alignment and efficiency.
Following interviews, insights are rigorously analyzed and integrated back into the broader due diligence framework. Where new issues emerge, these are validated through further investigation to ensure accuracy and relevance, creating a continuous feedback loop that strengthens the overall outcome.
Q: What is the response of interviewees to the process?
A: We generally see a strong willingness among participants to engage. Many recognize that interviews provide an opportunity to add context to findings that may otherwise appear as concerns or red flags.
Interviewees also understand that discussions are informed by detailed prior research, which encourages thoughtful and accurate responses. In many cases, this leads to the disclosure of additional information or perspectives that had not yet surfaced during the investigation.
Q: How have you developed your interview practice for these kinds of investigations?
A: As risk becomes increasingly global and complex, interview capabilities must evolve accordingly. Participation is voluntary, so accessibility and flexibility are key. We ensure sources can engage at times and in formats that suit them.
We have also implemented robust systems to maintain consistency, quality, and confidentiality across jurisdictions, languages, and cultural contexts. This allows us to deliver a reliable and scalable interview process while preserving the discretion that is central to our work.
Q: In cases like the recent Epstein-related findings, how would you structure follow-up interviews to deepen the analysis?
A: We would identify sources across professional, legal, and social networks who are well positioned to provide informed perspectives. This typically includes former colleagues, counterparties, and individuals with proximity to relevant matters or overlapping networks.
The aim is to build a well-rounded view of the relationship in question, focusing not just on direct interactions but also on how those relationships were perceived more broadly.
Q: What key questions would you seek to answer through these interviews?
A: We focus on understanding the nature and extent of relationships. This includes how they developed, how they were viewed at the time, and whether perceptions changed over time.
We also assess whether associations were widely known, whether there were expectations around disclosure, and whether any concerns were raised regarding judgment, transparency, or governance.
Q: How do you maintain discretion in these types of sensitive inquiries?
A: Discretion is fundamental to the process. We approach sources in a way that protects both client confidentiality and the integrity of the inquiry, often through broader, market-led outreach that does not disclose specific details. Throughout, we maintain strict confidentiality protocols to ensure that both sources and clients are protected.
Q: What role is AI playing in enhancing interview-led due diligence?
A: Our philosophy is that AI is increasingly a force multiplier, but not a replacement for human judgment.
For example, it helps us identify and prioritize the right sources more efficiently, map networks around a target, and detect patterns or inconsistencies across large volumes of information before interviews even begin. This enables more focused, higher-value conversations.
Post-interview, AI supports the analysis and synthesis of insights, highlighting recurring themes, outliers, or discrepancies across multiple sources. This strengthens the rigor and consistency of the overall assessment.
That said, the value of these interviews ultimately lies in human interpretation, particularly in navigating nuance, assessing credibility, and drawing informed conclusions where experience remains essential.
Commentary from our Contributors:
In an environment where investors are seeking deeper conviction, discreet third-party interviews have become a defining feature of modern due diligence. By combining rigorous investigation with real-world perspectives, they provide a clearer, more human view of risk and credibility, helping investors make better-informed decisions in an increasingly complex landscape.
Contributors
Jonathan Collins is a Director at Hilton Global Associates, with more than 20 years of experience in research, analysis, and journalism. He previously spent 17 years as a Research Director at ABI Research and held senior editorial roles across a number of technology and business publications. His background in research and reporting informs his approach to due diligence, with a particular focus on interviews and drawing out practical, experience-based insight.
Ryan Daley is a Senior Investigative Due Diligence Specialist at Hilton Global Associates, focusing on interview-led investigations and qualitative due diligence. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, regularly engaging with senior executives and industry experts as part of global research assignments. Prior to joining Hilton Global, Ryan held roles in investment research and due diligence, and began his career in military intelligence, which continues to shape his structured and analytical approach to investigations.