1. Purpose
1.1 This Policy establishes a disciplined institutional framework for investigating suspected misconduct, control failure, legal or ethical breach, misuse of authority, retaliation, fraud, corruption, information compromise, safeguarding concern and other matters requiring formal fact-finding.
1.2 It is designed to protect the integrity of evidence, the fairness of process, the rights and dignity of affected persons and the ability of TrustCome to take timely, proportionate and defensible action.
2. Policy Statement
2.1 TrustCome shall conduct investigations only for a legitimate institutional purpose and through persons possessing appropriate authority, independence, competence and access.
2.2 Every investigation shall distinguish allegation, information, evidence, inference, finding and decision. No person shall be treated as having committed misconduct merely because a concern has been raised or an investigation commenced.
6. No Presumption
6.1 The commencement of an investigation is a procedural decision, not a finding. Investigators, decision-makers and managers shall avoid language or conduct that presumes guilt, innocence or outcome before evidence has been fairly assessed.
6.2 Interim protective measures shall not be described or treated as disciplinary sanctions unless formally imposed through the applicable process.
7. Proportionality
7.1 The scope, formality, cost, duration and intrusiveness of an investigation shall be proportionate to the seriousness, complexity, urgency, legal sensitivity and potential consequences of the matter.
7.2 Proportionality does not permit material allegations to be handled casually, nor does it justify excessive collection, delay or disruption where narrower measures would reliably establish the relevant facts.
8. Cooperation and Lawful Direction
8.1 Persons within scope shall cooperate honestly and promptly with authorised investigations, preserve relevant information and comply with lawful instructions concerning confidentiality, availability, records and non-interference.
8.2 No person is required by this Policy to waive a legal right, breach applicable law, disclose privileged material without authority or place themselves at unreasonable personal risk.
9. Relationship with External Authorities
9.1 This Policy does not replace or delay any mandatory report, regulatory notification, safeguarding referral, court obligation or cooperation with a competent authority.
9.2 Where an external authority is involved, TrustCome Legal & Governance shall coordinate internal activity to avoid obstruction, contamination of evidence, inconsistent communications or prejudice to lawful proceedings.
10. Good-Faith Participation
10.1 A person who raises a concern, provides evidence, gives an interview or supports an investigation in good faith shall be protected under TC-PLC-006.
10.2 Knowingly false evidence, deliberate concealment, intimidation, retaliation and intentional interference with an authorised investigation may constitute separate misconduct.
14. Independence and Impartiality
14.1 Investigators shall be free from actual, potential or perceived conflicts capable of undermining confidence in the process or outcome.
14.2 Independence shall be assessed in light of reporting lines, prior involvement, personal or commercial relationships, expressed views, financial interests, institutional pressure and any future role in deciding consequences.
41. Evidence Principles
41.1 Evidence shall be obtained lawfully, proportionately, accurately and in a manner capable of demonstrating source, context, integrity and handling.
41.2 Investigators shall seek both inculpatory and exculpatory material and shall not ignore evidence inconsistent with an emerging hypothesis.
52. Evidence Security
52.1 Case material shall be stored in an authorised restricted environment with role-based access, logging, encryption or equivalent protection and controlled export.
52.2 Evidence shall not be transmitted through personal accounts, unapproved messaging services or uncontrolled portable media.
60. Fair Opportunity to Respond
60.1 Before an adverse finding is finalised, the person materially affected should receive a fair summary of the substance of the case and reasonable opportunity to respond, unless law or urgent protection needs require a different process.
60.2 The response and any supporting evidence shall be considered genuinely and addressed in the analysis.
64. Interview Conduct
64.1 Interviews shall be respectful, controlled and free from threats, promises of outcome, deception that would undermine fairness, discrimination, retaliation or unnecessary exposure of confidential information.
64.2 Breaks, reasonable time and appropriate accommodations shall be provided.
65. Analytical Discipline
65.1 Analysis shall address each issue in the terms of reference using the applicable facts, standards, evidence and burden or standard of proof.
65.2 Investigators shall identify material conflicts, gaps, assumptions, limitations and alternative explanations.
66. Standard of Proof
66.1 Unless a different standard is required by law, contract or governing procedure, internal findings shall ordinarily be made on the balance of probabilities: whether it is more likely than not that the relevant fact or conduct occurred.
66.2 The seriousness of an allegation does not alter the standard, but serious findings should be supported by evidence sufficiently cogent for the gravity and consequences of the matter.
70. Adverse and Exculpatory Evidence
70.1 The analysis shall address material evidence supporting and opposing each proposed adverse finding.
70.2 Exculpatory evidence shall not be omitted because it complicates the narrative or weakens the preferred institutional position.
87. Remediation Principle
87.1 Substantiated findings and material control weaknesses shall lead to timely, proportionate and documented remedial action.
87.2 Remediation shall address immediate harm, individual accountability, affected persons, control weaknesses, recurrence risk and institutional learning.
90. Proportionality of Consequence
90.1 Consequences shall consider seriousness, intent, harm, seniority, duty, repetition, concealment, cooperation, prior conduct, consistency, mitigation and legal constraints.
90.2 Seniority, influence, revenue contribution or strategic relationship shall not justify more favourable treatment.
97. Lessons Learned
97.1 After significant investigations, TrustCome Legal & Governance shall capture lessons that can improve policy, training, controls, due diligence, reporting channels and leadership practice.
97.2 Lessons may be shared in anonymised form to strengthen the institution without exposing protected persons or confidential case detail.
123. Breach of Policy
123.1 Breach of this Policy may result in investigation, removal of investigative authority, disciplinary or contractual action, referral, remediation and other proportionate consequences.
123.2 Failure by a leader to protect independence, preserve evidence or implement required remediation shall be treated as a governance matter.