A fraud investigation can lead to the loss of employees just because of the presence an investigator. Having an investigator present in the workplace can cause employees to be very tense. They can start pointing fingers at each other, which will result in arguments and eventually the loss of employees. If the victim lets his anger get the best of him and immediately confronts the suspect, he could ruin the entire investigation. The book gives the example of the boss who went straight to his employee and confronted her, but because he gave her all the evidence that he had against her (which probably wasn't as much evidence as could have been gathered if there had been an investigation) she went to the police first and gave a reasonable explanation for the cash receipts so nothing was done about it. If the suspect is confronted before there is a chance to create a case file and gather all the necessary information, then the suspect can come up with explanations or ways to put the blame elsewhere. This is why the main objective of the victim must be to find the problem and fix it. This might mean that he will need to allow the investigator to gather all the information and build a case against the suspect while the employee is still committing the fraud. If the main goal is punishment, then the victim is likely to ruin the case or get very upset if it does not end up in court or with a conviction due to lack of evidence or unwillingness of legal authorities to pursue the case.