Rights of the Accused in Internal Investigations: Protocol Applied for Conducting Corporate Investigations

Cristina Nogueira Duarte; Larissa Paula Stachio

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602791

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

Internal corporate investigations, essential for compliance and integrity programs, often lack structured procedures that ensure safeguards such as the right to be heard, full defense, presumption of innocence, and personal data protection for the accused. This study aimed to develop and test an applied protocol for conducting internal corporate investigations, seeking to protect the rights of the accused without compromising effectiveness, impartiality, and legal certainty. An applied methodology was adopted, combining literature review, analysis of practical cases, and a case study in organizational units of a private professional education institution. As main results, operational instruments were developed, notably the Matrix of Rights of the Accused, the Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0), an interview guide with legal warning (Upjohn), standardized notification and record templates, a chain of custody checklist, and a training plan for HR and compliance teams. Peer validation and pilot application showed gains in procedural clarity, traceability, transparency, and predictability of the investigative process. Needs for adjustments in communication language, defense deadlines, and segregation of duties were identified. It was concluded that the implementation of structured procedures contributes to the reduction of legal risks, the strengthening of organizational trust, and the improvement of decision-making quality in corporate investigations.

Keywords: Good faith; Compliance; Rights of the accused; Corporate governance; Internal investigations.

1. Introduction

Business societies are increasingly compelled to conduct private internal investigations to ascertain relevant facts that may impact their image or even their existence. Such investigations are crucial for maintaining integrity and compliance within organizations, covering a wide range of occurrences, such as fraud, moral and sexual harassment, violations of diversity and inclusion standards, slave and child labor, cybercrimes, crimes against honor, fake news, and money laundering (Boldt, 2025; Araújo, 2024).

The execution of these private investigations aims to discourage improper practices, protect the corporation’s reputation, and foster a culture of trust and transparency. Additionally, they encourage whistleblowing by employees, promote compliance with current laws and policies, and contribute to reducing damages from legislative sanctions. The process also seeks to cease irregular practices, prevent new occurrences, improve flawed mechanisms, contain losses, and recover diverted assets (Pegoraro, 2023).

Despite the undeniable importance of these investigations, there is a regulatory gap regarding their conduct, which generates significant challenges for those responsible. It is essential to consider the rights of the accused, which include the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and full defense, and protection against undue exposure (Boldt, 2025).

When an employee is accused of misconduct and disciplinary measures are applied, several problems can arise, affecting both the professional and personal lives of the individual. The indignation and emotional impact of being informed about the application of disciplinary measures can generate feelings of injustice, shame, and stress, affecting mental health and professional performance (Costa et al., 2024).

Another critical point is the distrust regarding the evidence gathered during the investigation. Often, the accused question the validity and integrity of the evidence, especially if they believe it was obtained improperly or partially, which can undermine confidence in the investigative process and in the organization itself (Fleischfresser, 2024; Paz, 2025). The anonymization of data from the people involved is also a crucial aspect to ensure security and privacy, but a lack of clarity about its protection can generate insecurity and distrust (ANPD, 2023).

The impossibility of broadly exercising the defense is a recurring problem, as the accused often feel that they do not have an adequate opportunity to present their version of the facts or contest the evidence. This can occur due to limitations in access to information or the absence of a fair and transparent process (Costa et al., 2024).

The choice of the theme is justified by the need to address and mitigate the problems faced by collaborators during the investigative process, guaranteeing the rights of the accused, such as the presumption of innocence, ample defense, and protection against undue exposure (Boldt, 2025). The discussion of the theme aligns with the Social and Governance dimensions of ESG, relating to corporate integrity, transparency, segregation of duties, traceability of decisions, and strengthening of internal control mechanisms, in addition to protecting the dignity of workers and preventing discriminatory practices. The research objective is to investigate the necessary means to ensure that the rights of the accused are fully guaranteed during corporate investigations, so that such guarantees do not compromise the impartiality or effectiveness of the inquiries, but rather contribute to fairer and more effective decisions, through Internal Investigation protocols focused on the protection of the accused, detailing flows, roles, and evaluation metrics.

2. Material and Methods

The research adopted an applied nature, combining a predominantly qualitative approach to investigate the means necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused in corporate investigations. The study sought to develop, test, and validate instruments that would strengthen ethical compliance and the protection of fundamental guarantees, without compromising the impartiality and effectiveness of the investigations. To this end, bibliographic research, analysis of practical cases, and a case study were employed.

The case study was conducted in organizational units of a private professional education institution, located in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The areas involved were directly related to the management of complaints and the conduct of internal investigations. The selection of this environment allowed for the observation of real processes and interaction with professionals who work directly on the subject matter.

Eight professionals participated in the research, selected by intentional sampling, due to their experience and performance in the processes of investigating complaints and managing conduct. The group was composed of three professionals from the Human Resources area, three from the Compliance area, one from the Acquisition area, and one from the Professional Education area. These participants contributed to the validation of the developed instruments and to the evaluation of the proposed flows.

The analysis of practical cases was conducted from real corporate investigation situations, with the objective of verifying compliance with the rights of the accused and identifying good practices. To support this analysis, publicly available internal investigation reports, journalistic articles, and case studies published by specialized institutions were used, seeking a broad understanding of existing approaches.

Three representative cases were selected for analysis, based on two criteria: the frequency of occurrence in the organization’s complaint records and the relevance of the disciplinary measure potentially applicable in each situation. The cases were previously anonymized for academic purposes, with the suppression of information that could identify specific individuals or areas, in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and personal data protection.

To support the analysis of cases and ensure uniformity in the collection and treatment of information, specific instruments were developed. Among them, the Matrix of Defendants’ Rights stood out, designed to verify compliance with principles such as adversarial proceedings, broad defense, presumption of innocence, and personal data protection. This material served as an objective reference for the evaluation.

Another essential instrument was the interview script with a legal warning, inspired by the model known as the *Upjohn Warning*, widely used in internal investigations. The script was structured in three blocks: the first to get to know the interviewee and their role, the second to create a trusting environment, and the third with questions directed at the facts under investigation, seeking information and evidence.

Additionally, standardized notification and registration models were used to formalize the investigation’s acts and ensure documentary traceability. A chain of custody and evidentiary legality checklist was also employed to verify the procedures for obtaining, storing, and analyzing documents, digital files, and other evidence, ensuring legal and ethical compliance.

The toolkit also included a communication and training plan, developed to disseminate the revised practices and strengthen the internal culture of respect for the rights of those involved. This plan aimed to publicize the adopted procedures and promote continuous training for the teams responsible for conducting or supporting corporate investigations.

The research was conducted in structured steps. Initially, a mapping of the processes and main risks related to corporate investigations was carried out to understand the institutional context and vulnerable points. Subsequently, the previously described methodological protocols and instruments were built, aiming to standardize procedures and ensure technical rigor and respect for legal guarantees.

After the construction of the instruments, a peer validation stage was carried out, involving the eight professionals selected by intentional sampling. The validation process occurred in two stages: in the first, the participants individually analyzed the instruments, evaluating clarity, applicability, normative adherence, completeness, and compatibility. In the second, the revised instruments were again submitted for verification of the adequacy of the changes.

With the validated instruments, a pilot application was conducted involving the three previously selected and anonymized cases. This stage aimed to test the applicability of the instruments and identify any operational difficulties. During the pilot application, evidence such as documents, records, and statements obtained through interviews were collected, always observing data protection regulations and the principles of the General Data Protection Law (LGPD).

The data analysis was predominantly qualitative, with the purpose of integrating the results from the literature review, the analysis of practical cases, and the pilot application. This integration allowed for the construction of a broad understanding of corporate investigative practices, especially regarding the observance of whistleblowers’ rights and methodological consistency.

The analysis was conducted through thematic coding techniques, which made it possible to organize the collected material into emerging patterns, categories, and themes. The pre-defined analytical categories, based on the literature and research objectives, were: Defense guarantees and adversarial principle; Presumption of innocence and institutional communication; Personal data protection and confidentiality; Impartiality and segregation of duties; and Procedural effectiveness and traceability of records.

Complementarily, the triangulation technique was used, integrating documentary data, evidence collected in interviews, contributions from validation participants, and records observed during the pilot application. Triangulation reinforced the robustness of the conclusions, allowing different types of data to mutually confirm each other or reveal inconsistencies that demanded analytical attention.

The research rigorously observed the ethical principles applicable to studies with sensitive information, including secrecy, data minimization, confidentiality, presumption of innocence, and personal data protection, in compliance with the LGPD. All procedures were planned to ensure that only strictly necessary information was used, preserving the integrity and privacy of the individuals involved.

The interview participants were previously informed about the research objectives and the conditions for using the information. A Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF) was adopted, detailing the guarantee of anonymity of responses, the confidentiality of records, and the use of data exclusively for academic purposes. There was no need for submission to a Research Ethics Committee, as the research was applied, focused on the evaluation of organizational processes and used previously anonymized information.

3. Results and Discussion

The results of this research consist of the development, validation, and consolidation of a set of instruments applied to the conduct of internal corporate investigations, with a primary focus on protecting the rights of the accused. These instruments were tested in a pilot application and demonstrated adherence to good practices in compliance, governance, and legal security. The detailed analysis of the findings allowed for a concrete verification of how the structuring of procedures and the standardization of workflows positively impact the clarity, predictability, and legitimacy of investigative processes, crucial elements for organizational trust.

As a main practical outcome, several operational instruments were developed and consolidated. Among them, the Matrix of Rights of Whistleblowers, the Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0), an interview script with legal warning inspired by the Upjohn model, standardized templates for notifications and records, a chain of custody checklist, and a training plan for Human Resources and compliance teams stand out. These resources were meticulously structured to verifiably operationalize fundamental guarantees throughout all stages of the internal investigation.

The Whistleblower Rights Matrix, in particular, has emerged as a central element, translating abstract legal and ethical principles into objective and verifiable procedural criteria. This matrix organizes the rights and principles applicable to internal investigations into four complementary axes, as detailed in the research. The first axis, “Right/Principle”, consolidates guarantees recurring in literature and practice, such as the adversarial principle, the right to a full defense, the presumption of innocence, the protection of personal data, impartiality, proportionality, and the prohibition of retaliation, establishing a minimum benchmark for procedural compliance.

The second axis of the matrix, named “Procedural Safeguard”, explicits the operationalization of each right in practice. This is done through concrete mechanisms, such as formal knowledge of the facts, the provision of defense windows, the review of communication language, the segregation of functions, and the application of proportionality criteria. During peer validation, the interviewed professionals emphasized that the clarity of these safeguards is fundamental to reduce discretionary interpretations and perceptions of arbitrariness, contributing to a fairer and more transparent process.

In the “Evidence/Record” column, the matrix links each safeguard to specific documents and records, including notifications, hearing terms, checklists, and access logs. This component was considered of special relevance by the interviewees, as it facilitates internal audits, subsequent reviews, and the objective demonstration of compliance. This documentary traceability is crucial for contexts of administrative or judicial questioning, conferring greater legal certainty to the investigative process and the decisions arising from it.

Finally, the “Checkpoint” axis of the matrix defines the specific moments in the process when each right must be observed and verified. This approach aims to prevent fundamental guarantees from being restricted only to the final stage of the investigation, ensuring their continuous application. The pilot application of the instruments suggested that the prior definition of these control points favors the standardization of flows and the predictability of the procedure, without compromising the effectiveness of fact-finding.

The Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0) was developed with the objective of establishing an applied, replicable, and auditable flow for conducting investigations. It details roles and responsibilities, such as the Ombudsman/Whistleblowing Channel for reception/triage, Compliance/HR for investigation, Legal Support for advisory, and DPO/LGPD for legal basis validation. The step-by-step flow includes everything from receiving the complaint to closing and lessons learned, with reference deadlines for each phase, such as three business days for triage and up to fifteen business days for investigation.

The interview script with a legal warning, inspired by the Upjohn model, also proved to be a vital instrument. Its three-part structure — getting to know the interviewee and the context, creating comfort and establishing trust, and asking fact-oriented questions — aims to obtain information ethically and effectively. The legal warning clarifies that the interview is institutional and that the information belongs to the organization, protecting the company and informing the interviewee about the limits of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of their participation.

The standardized models of notifications and records, along with the chain of custody and evidentiary legality checklist, were essential to formalize the investigation’s acts and ensure documentary traceability. The standardization of communications, for example, aims to reduce the risk of language interpreted as prejudgment, while the checklist guarantees the integrity of the evidence, from obtaining it to its secure disposal, in accordance with the General Data Protection Law (LGPD).

The communication and training plan, in turn, was developed to disseminate the revised practices and strengthen the internal culture of respect for the rights of those involved. This plan seeks to continuously train the teams responsible for conducting or supporting corporate investigations, addressing the fundamentals of investigations, protection of the investigation and safeguards for the accused, execution of the protocol and internal interview techniques, with the aim of mitigating biases and ensuring the fidelity of the record.

The peer validation stage, which involved eight professionals from Human Resources, Compliance, Acquisition, and Professional Education, indicated the general adequacy of the instruments to the proposed objectives and the internal norms of the analyzed organization. However, specific adjustment needs were identified, especially in the language of the notifications, which required greater clarity, neutrality, and proportionality to avoid perceptions of prejudgment by the accused, as pointed out by Costa et al. (2024).

During the validation process, a significant convergence was observed among participants regarding the need to formalize investigative steps and clearly define the rights guaranteed to the accused. The contributions received focused predominantly on improving the language of communications, defining more balanced deadlines for the presentation of defense, and reinforcing the segregation of duties among the stages of receiving the complaint, investigation, and decision-making, which are crucial elements for the impartiality of the process.

The analysis of the three selected practical cases revealed that the absence of previously defined criteria for the exercise of the adversarial principle and broad defense tends to generate perceptions of insecurity and questions about the impartiality of the process. On the other hand, the use of the developed instruments favored greater standardization of procedures, better organization of records, and increased transparency of the investigative stages, contributing to confidence in the process.

The pilot application of the instruments allowed for verification of their practical operationalization in situations represented by the studied cases. The results showed relevant gains in procedural transparency, workflow organization, and understanding, by the internal audience, of the investigation stages and the rights assured. The adoption of formal defense checkpoints and standardized communications contributed to reducing information asymmetries and strengthening the predictability of the process, aspects directly associated with the perception of justice and legitimacy of internal investigations.

The integrated analysis of these results demonstrates that the structuring of procedures does not compromise the effectiveness of the investigations, but, on the contrary, contributes to their technical and legal robustness. This finding dialogues with the literature that defends the need to transform legal and ethical principles into concrete organizational practices, especially in the context of corporate investigations. Studies such as those by Boldt (2025) and Fleischfresser (2024) point out that the absence of clear protocols tends to increase risks of nullity, internal challenges, and litigation, while structured procedures favor more consistent and defensible decisions.

The results also confirm the relevance of communication as a central element in protecting the rights of the accused. The validation and testing of the notification models showed that the form of communication directly impacts the perception of the presumption of innocence and fair treatment, corroborating findings from the literature on organizational trust and individual behavior in conduct investigation contexts, as highlighted by Costa et al. (2024). In this sense, the results indicate that it is not enough to formally ensure the right to defense; it is necessary for this right to be communicated clearly, proportionally, and understandably.

Another relevant result refers to the strengthening of the segregation of duties in internal investigations. The analysis suggested that the separation between the stages of receiving the complaint, investigation, and deliberation reduces the risks of conflicts of interest and reinforces the impartiality of the process, in line with governance guidelines and international standards, such as ISO 37002. This finding reinforces the understanding that the organizational structure of the investigation is a determining element for the credibility and legitimacy of its results, promoting an environment of greater trust and integrity.

In an integrated manner, the analysis of the Matrix of Rights of the Accused shows that the use of a visual and structured instrument contributes to transforming abstract principles into applicable, replicable, and auditable organizational practices. The implementation of this matrix and the Internal Investigation Protocol proved particularly relevant for making concrete principles that are often treated abstractly in organizational practice, specifying defense checkpoints, defined deadlines, and proportionality criteria, which allowed for greater predictability of the investigative process and reduced information asymmetries between the investigated and decision-making bodies.

In summary, the findings of this research demonstrate that the protection of the rights of the accused in internal investigations is not only viable but constitutes a fundamental pillar for the legitimacy, consistency, and sustainability of integrity programs. The structuring of procedures and the standardization of workflows, through the developed instruments, contribute significantly to the reduction of legal risks, the strengthening of organizational trust, and the improvement of decision-making quality, directly responding to the objective of ensuring guarantees without compromising the effectiveness of the investigations.

The results of this research consist of the development, validation, and consolidation of a set of instruments applied to the conduct of internal corporate investigations, with a primary focus on protecting the rights of the accused. These instruments were tested in a pilot application and demonstrated adherence to good practices in compliance, governance, and legal security. The detailed analysis of the findings allowed for a concrete verification of how the structuring of procedures and the standardization of workflows positively impact the clarity, predictability, and legitimacy of investigative processes, crucial elements for organizational trust.

As a main practical outcome, several operational instruments were developed and consolidated. Among them, the Matrix of Rights of Whistleblowers, the Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0), an interview script with legal warning inspired by the Upjohn model, standardized templates for notifications and records, a chain of custody checklist, and a training plan for Human Resources and compliance teams stand out. These resources were meticulously structured to verifiably operationalize fundamental guarantees throughout all stages of the internal investigation.

The Whistleblower Rights Matrix, in particular, has emerged as a central element, translating abstract legal and ethical principles into objective and verifiable procedural criteria. This matrix organizes the rights and principles applicable to internal investigations into four complementary axes, as detailed in the research. The first axis, “Right/Principle”, consolidates guarantees recurring in literature and practice, such as the adversarial principle, the right to a full defense, the presumption of innocence, the protection of personal data, impartiality, proportionality, and the prohibition of retaliation, establishing a minimum benchmark for procedural compliance.

The second axis of the matrix, named “Procedural Safeguard”, explicits the operationalization of each right in practice. This is done through concrete mechanisms, such as formal knowledge of the facts, the provision of defense windows, the review of communication language, the segregation of functions, and the application of proportionality criteria. During peer validation, the interviewed professionals emphasized that the clarity of these safeguards is fundamental to reduce discretionary interpretations and perceptions of arbitrariness, contributing to a fairer and more transparent process.

In the “Evidence/Record” column, the matrix links each safeguard to specific documents and records, including notifications, hearing terms, checklists, and access logs. This component was considered of special relevance by the interviewees for facilitating internal audits, subsequent reviews, and the objective demonstration of compliance. This documentary traceability is crucial for contexts of administrative or judicial questioning, conferring greater legal certainty to the investigative process and the decisions arising from it.

Finally, the “Checkpoint” axis of the matrix defines the specific moments in the process when each right must be observed and verified. This approach aims to prevent fundamental guarantees from being restricted only to the final stage of the investigation, ensuring their continuous application. The pilot application of the instruments suggested that the prior definition of these control points favors the standardization of flows and the predictability of the procedure, without compromising the effectiveness of fact-finding.

The Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0) was developed with the objective of establishing an applied, replicable, and auditable flow for conducting investigations. It details roles and responsibilities, such as the Ombudsman/Whistleblowing Channel for reception/triage, Compliance/HR for investigation, Legal Support for advisory, and DPO/LGPD for legal basis validation. The step-by-step flow includes everything from receiving the complaint to closing and lessons learned, with reference deadlines for each phase, such as three business days for triage and up to fifteen business days for investigation.

The interview script with a legal warning, inspired by the Upjohn model, also proved to be a vital instrument. Its three-part structure — getting to know the interviewee and the context, creating comfort and establishing trust, and asking fact-oriented questions — aims to obtain information ethically and effectively. The legal warning clarifies that the interview is institutional and that the information belongs to the organization, protecting the company and informing the interviewee about the limits of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of their participation.

The standardized models of notifications and records, along with the chain of custody and evidentiary legality checklist, were essential to formalize the investigation’s acts and ensure documentary traceability. The standardization of communications, for example, aims to reduce the risk of language interpreted as prejudgment, while the checklist guarantees the integrity of the evidence, from obtaining it to its secure disposal, in accordance with the General Data Protection Law (LGPD).

The communication and training plan, in turn, was developed with the purpose of disseminating the revised practices and strengthening the internal culture of respect for the rights of those involved. This plan seeks to continuously train the teams responsible for conducting or supporting corporate investigations, addressing the fundamentals of investigations, protection of the investigation and safeguards for the accused, execution of the protocol and internal interview techniques, with the objective of mitigating biases and ensuring the fidelity of the record.

The peer validation stage, which involved eight professionals from Human Resources, Compliance, Acquisition, and Professional Education, indicated the general adequacy of the instruments to the proposed objectives and the internal norms of the analyzed organization. However, specific adjustment needs were identified, especially in the language of the notifications, which required greater clarity, neutrality, and proportionality to avoid perceptions of prejudgment by the accused, as pointed out by Costa et al. (2024).

During the validation process, a significant convergence was observed among participants regarding the need to formalize investigative steps and clearly define the rights guaranteed to the accused. The contributions received focused predominantly on improving the language of communications, defining more balanced deadlines for the presentation of defense, and reinforcing the segregation of duties among the stages of receiving the complaint, investigation, and decision-making, which are crucial elements for the impartiality of the process.

The analysis of the three selected practical cases revealed that the absence of previously defined criteria for the exercise of the adversarial principle and broad defense tends to generate perceptions of insecurity and questions about the impartiality of the process. On the other hand, the use of the developed instruments favored greater standardization of procedures, better organization of records, and increased transparency of the investigative stages, contributing to confidence in the process.

The pilot application of the instruments allowed for verification of their practical operationalization in situations represented by the studied cases. The results showed relevant gains in procedural transparency, workflow organization, and understanding, by the internal audience, of the investigation stages and the rights assured. The adoption of formal defense checkpoints and standardized communications contributed to reducing information asymmetries and strengthening the predictability of the process, aspects directly associated with the perception of justice and legitimacy of internal investigations.

The integrated analysis of these results demonstrates that the structuring of procedures does not compromise the effectiveness of the investigations, but, on the contrary, contributes to their technical and legal robustness. This finding dialogues with the literature that defends the need to transform legal and ethical principles into concrete organizational practices, especially in the context of corporate investigations. Studies such as those by Boldt (2025) and Fleischfresser (2024) point out that the absence of clear protocols tends to increase risks of nullity, internal challenges, and litigation, while structured procedures favor more consistent and defensible decisions.

The results also confirm the relevance of communication as a central element in protecting the rights of the accused. The validation and testing of the notification models showed that the form of communication directly impacts the perception of the presumption of innocence and fair treatment, corroborating findings from the literature on organizational trust and individual behavior in conduct investigation contexts, as highlighted by Costa et al. (2024). In this sense, the results indicate that it is not enough to formally ensure the right to defense; it is essential that this right be communicated clearly, proportionally, and understandably.

Another relevant result refers to the strengthening of the segregation of duties in internal investigations. The analysis suggested that the separation between the stages of receiving the complaint, investigation, and deliberation reduces the risks of conflicts of interest and reinforces the impartiality of the process, in line with governance guidelines and international standards, such as ISO 37002. This finding reinforces the understanding that the organizational structure of the investigation is a determining element for the credibility and legitimacy of its results, promoting an environment of greater trust and integrity.

In an integrated manner, the analysis of the Matrix of Rights of the Accused shows that the use of a visual and structured instrument contributes to transforming abstract principles into applicable, replicable, and auditable organizational practices. The implementation of this matrix and the Internal Investigation Protocol proved particularly relevant for making concrete principles that are often treated abstractly in organizational practice, specifying defense checkpoints, defined deadlines, and proportionality criteria, which allowed for greater predictability of the investigative process and reduced information asymmetries between the investigated and decision-making bodies.

In summary, the findings of this research demonstrate that the protection of the rights of the accused in internal investigations is not only viable but constitutes a fundamental pillar for the legitimacy, consistency, and sustainability of integrity programs. The structuring of procedures and the standardization of workflows, through the developed instruments, contribute significantly to the reduction of legal risks, the strengthening of organizational trust, and the improvement of decision-making quality, directly responding to the objective of ensuring guarantees without compromising the effectiveness of the investigations.

4. Conclusion

This study sought to investigate the necessary means to ensure that the rights of the accused were fully guaranteed during corporate investigations, without compromising the impartiality and effectiveness of the inquiries. To this end, an applied protocol was developed and tested, which resulted in the creation of operational instruments such as the Matrix of Rights of the Accused, the Internal Investigation Protocol (version 1.0), a script for interviews with legal warnings, standardized templates for notifications and records, a chain of custody checklist, and a training plan. Peer validation and pilot application of these instruments showed significant gains in procedural clarity, traceability, transparency, and predictability of the investigative process. It was observed that the structuring of procedures and the standardization of workflows contribute to the reduction of legal risks, the strengthening of organizational trust, and the improvement of decision-making quality in corporate investigations, confirming that the protection of the rights of the accused is a pillar for the legitimacy of integrity programs.

The main contribution of this work lies in delivering a set of practical, adaptable, and replicable instruments that guide organizations in conducting safer, more ethical, and effective internal investigations, reconciling investigative efficiency with the protection of fundamental rights. In the academic sphere, the study enriches the debate on the rights of the accused in private investigations in Brazil, offering empirical evidence. However, it is recognized that the research has limitations, such as the participation of only eight professionals in the validation, the analysis of three cases selected by intentional sampling, and the application of the protocol in a specific organizational environment, which restricts the generalization of the results to other institutional contexts. It is suggested that future studies expand the number of participants, apply the instruments in various economic sectors, and incorporate long-term monitoring metrics to further consolidate the applicability and impact of these protocols.

Bibliographic References

ANPD. 2023. Estudo técnico sobre anonimização de dados na LGPD. Autoridade Nacional de Proteção de Dados. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/documentos-tecnicos/orientativos/estudo tecnico sobre anonimizacao de dados na Igpd uma v isao de processo baseado em risco e tecnicas computacionais.pdf. Acesso em: 03 set. 2025.

ARAÚJO, D. J. (2024). O papel das investigações internas nas organizações. Jusbrasil. Disponível em: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/artigos/o-papel-das-investigacoes-internas-nas-organizacoes/3003250133. Acesso em: 12 jan. 2026.

BOLDT DE CARVALHO, R. 2025. Investigações internas corporativas: lacunas e lições do direito comparado. Consultor Jurídico. Disponível em: https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-fev-09/investigacoes-internas-corporativas-no-brasil-lacunas-e-licoes-do-direito-comparado/. Acesso em: 03 set. 2025.

COSTA, M. S. et al. (2024). Emoções e comportamentos nas organizações: impactos e influências. Revista de Administração, PUC-SP. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/caadm/article/view/65517. Acesso em: 03 set. 2025.

FLEISCHFRESSER, L. (2024). A prova nas investigações internas corporativas. Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade de Lisboa. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstream/10400.5/96617/1/Dissertac a o%20Leonardo%20Fleischfresser%20-%20Concluida.pdf. Acesso em: 12 jan. 2026.

PAZ, A. V. O. (2025). Investigações internas: fundamentos, limites, boas práticas e estratégias. Consultor Jurídico, 2 abr. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-abr-02/investigacoes-internas-fundamentos-limites-boas-praticas-e-estrategias/. Acesso em: 12 jan. 2026.

PEGORARO, A. (2023). Investigação Corporativa: O que é e como funciona? Kronoos Blog. Disponível em: https://www.kronoos.com/blog/investigacao-corporativa-o-que-e-e-como-funciona. Acesso em: 03 set. 2025.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Compliance and ESG of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform