The company Vlasta-Consulting on an ongoing basis conducts information checks of personnel for the Russian offices for a number of foreign companies. The work is carried out both at the level of "screening" of ordinary employees, and in the format of in-depth screening of candidates for key positions.

A company was considering several people for one of the key positions directly reporting to the CEO. One of the candidates was chosen for the final round.

The initiated information investigation did not reveal any direct negative issues in regards to the person being checked. But after receiving feedback from previous places of work, several reviews were provided in an emphasized official and vague form.

Based on this, and considering the risks for this particular position, it was decided to expand the information check to the next of kin.

In the course of the audit, a significant gap between the incomes of the family of the inspected person and the standard of living of his immediate family, primarily his wife and parents, was revealed; In particular:

• Social networks revealed photos of numerous holidays of the verified person with his family in expensive luxury segment hotels;
• Open data on their properties showed expensive real estate (a country house in a gated community, several apartments in Moscow) registered in the name of the spouse, while the inspected person was registered in an apartment of an average price category;
• It was also noted that the parents of the candidate owned several premium-segment cars, despite the fact that the person being checked moved on a business-class car, which corresponded to the level of his current income;
• Finally, when analyzing the data for the registration of property, it was noted that a number of expensive purchases coincided with the termination from previous places of work; coincidentally, it was from these places of work that formally vague feedback was received.

Using the information collected, it was concluded that there was lack of reliability of the inspected person, based on the revealed contradictions between the official level of income of the person and his standard of living and that of his close relatives.

Timely coincidences of high-value property purchases and dismissals from several previous jobs were noted as a separate alarming signal.

The audit report cited the following: the subject, occupying senior positions in the company, collected incriminating information, and upon dismissal used it to blackmail the management, receiving significant compensation upon dismissal under a non-disclosure agreement.

As an additional measure of protection against risks on the part of Vlasta-Consulting, it was proposed to invite a specialist profiler to the final round of the interview.

This specialist, without using a lie detector, but having knowledge of the contradictions identified within the framework of the information check, compiled a checklist of questions. During the conversation, the candidate gave conflicting answers, was noticeably nervous and tried to "chat up" the conversation. In a number of cases, failures in the use of tenses turned on themselves - the respondent told the story in the past tense, then jumped to the present, then returned to using the past tense.

As a result, the candidate received a negative review from the specialist profiler, who identified numerous attempts to hide information in one way or another.

Based on the data, both the informational check and the conclusion of the profiler, the company refused the candidate for the position. They opted for another applicant, who successfully passed the trial period, and the company appreciates his work.