You’ve Got A New Foreign Language Investigation? Beware of Traduttore, Traditore!

A very old Italian expression “Traduttore, Traditore” translated as “Translator, Traitor” always comes to my mind when dealing with foreign language investigations. I would never forget how my father in law, a former chairman of a reinsurance company focused in Latin America, always repeated that it was almost impossible in Miami to find real Spanish bilingual people (read, write and talk both languages with the same fluency). I never really believed this premise, until I started working on FCPA investigations. Throughout my professional career, I've witnessed “Bi-Google-lingual” professionals, attorneys claiming a foreign language fluency since probably they took a course in high school; to even people heading geographical departments without knowledge of any of the languages spoken in those territories. It is evident that technology is making our lives easier, allowing us to understand and communicate in foreign languages; nevertheless, it is certainly not enough to grasp a real understanding of the matter under investigation and, most importantly, communicate in an effective way with people subject to it. Many times, investigators rely on either a professional interpreter who provides a literal translation of what it is discussed or if they are lucky, have someone on their team who spent several years studying the language or even luckier, if they have a native speaker. However, as someone who had to google the name “John Doe” to find out who was this guy everyone talked about or discover the meaning of “widget” -the ubiquitous term used by law school professors when referring to transactional 'things'- it is crucial that investigators also understand, or familiarize with, the cultural intricacies of the jurisdiction they will be conducting the investigation. In the course of these investigations time is often wasted, not only interpreting witness/custodians’ answers to people on the team who are not fluent in the language, but mostly in explaining the equivalences of what the issue at hand is from a US/common law perspective. It is then when you remember King Henry VIII's efforts to distinguish Common Law from Civil Law in his feud with the Papacy. This difference is most likely present when dealing with a foreign language investigation. Many times, knowing the language is not enough. For example, when someone you are interviewing is talking about the “obligations ” under Civil Law, it would certainly help if the translator or interpreter understands that this concept (originated in Roman Law) refers to contractual terms, and thus needs to be equated to the Common Law “quid pro quo” or “bargain for exchange”. In sum, context and deep knowledge of the cultural/legal intricacies are as important, and at times even more important, as understanding the language. For one thing, this might help many professionals being unlawfully labeled as traitors. More prosaically and, if you allow me, paraphrasing that endearing line from Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest: My dear lawyers and investigators, the whole truth is rarely pure and never simple.

Quod Scripsi, Scripsi!