How to Present a Fraud Finding to a Hiring Manager Without Conflict

When you identify possible interview fraud, the most significant risk is not the fraud itself.
The most considerable risk is presenting it the wrong way and triggering:

• Defensive reactions

• Relationship friction

• Blame of the recruiter

• Emotional escalation

• Hiring manager distrust

This framework ensures the conversation stays:

• Neutral

• Evidence-based

• Non-accusatory

• And focused on decision integrity, not blame

First: The Mindset Shift

Your goal is not to prove someone cheated.
Your goal is to show:

The signals we observed require verification before a hiring decision can be made.

Everything must be framed around:

• Consistency

• Fairness

• Accuracy

• Protecting team performance

Not:

• Suspicion

• Accusation

• Policing candidates

When feedback uses emotional language, recipients become self-focused and less task-oriented.
Removing emotional framing keeps the focus on the work and what needs to improve.

The Three Principles of Present Fraud Findings to Hiring Managers

To avoid conflict:

The Conversation Script

Use this exact structure.

Step 1: Start With the Goal

Our goal is to ensure we make a reliable hiring decision based on the candidate’s own skills and reasoning.

This grounds the discussion in shared purpose.

Step 2: Describe Observations (Not Conclusions)

Avoid:

• “I think the candidate cheated.”

• “I don’t believe this candidate.”

Use neutral behavior statements:

During the interview, the candidate was able to provide polished answers, but when asked follow-up reasoning questions, they struggled to explain personal decisions or adapt the solution when constraints changed.

These signals indicate there may be a gap between the delivered interview performance and the candidate’s own skill depth.

This is evidence, not an accusation.

Step 3: Tie the Signal to Hiring Risk

In our experience, when we see this pattern, it often results in performance issues post-hire. We want to prevent rework, frustration and offboarding scenarios.

Now the hiring manager sees:

• You are solving their problem

• Not blocking their hire

Step 4: Present the Next Step as Standard Procedure

Make this sound like policy, not choice.

The next step in our standard workflow is to conduct a short identity and reasoning verification session.
This ensures the interview reflects the candidate’s own capabilities.
This is the same process we apply in similar cases.

Repeat:

Same process. Not special treatment.

This prevents emotional reaction.

Step 5: Ask for Agreement

Keep the question low-friction.

Does that sound reasonable?
Or
Happy to walk through what that verification looks like.

Never ask:

• “Do you believe me?”

• “Do you want to move forward or reject?”

You are not asking for judgment.
You are requesting alignment on the process.

Common Hiring Manager Reactions and How to Respond

This prevents friction.

Documentation Template (Internal Notes)

Observed signal: Candidate was unable to explain personal ownership of solution and could not adapt reasoning when constraints changed. 
Impact: Interview performance may not represent the candidate’s actual working skill.
Action: Conduct standard identity and reasoning verification session before next stage

This is audit-safe, bias-safe, and manager-safe.

Conclusion

Presenting fraud findings is about tone, not confrontation.

The winning formula:

• Describe observations

• Tie them to performance risk

• Frame verification as standard, neutral workflow

• Seek alignment, not agreement, on suspicion

Your job is not to accuse.
Your job is to protect hiring quality and team performance.