In an entirely legitimate attempt to combat abuse of employee leave, particularly under Italy’s Law 104/92, many public bodies are turning to investigative tools. It’s a sign of the times: even the public sector is increasingly relying on professionals to monitor potential misconduct among staff.
But there is a recurring communication mistake that risks undermining the entire effort.
It has now become fairly common for public administrations to formally announce, and well in advance, not only the launch of investigative activities, but also the name of the private agency assigned.
This communication is often sent to all personnel and unions, driven by a principle of transparency—but in practice, it can severely compromise the effectiveness of the investigation itself.
Why alert those who may be abusing leave that they will be monitored? Why reveal operational details, exposing the agency and making it recognizable in the field?
In an attempt to try to uphold transparency, one ends up neutralizing tools designed to protect legality and ensure proper use of public resources. This is why, in such cases, transparency can turn into a real boomerang.
Perché è un problema?
Those familiar with the investigative field know well that confidentiality is essential to the success of any investigation. When administrations disclose the nature of the checks and the identity of the agency involved, three serious risks emerge:
1. L’efficacia investigativa viene meno
If potentially dishonest individuals know they’re being watched, it’s only natural that they will temporarily adjust their behavior to avoid being caught. In practice, the observation window closes before it even opens, and what the investigator captures is not genuine behavior, but a staged version.
2. Investigators are exposed
Revealing the name of the agency puts field operators at risk: they may be recognized, followed, or even obstructed during their work. In some cases, the agency may no longer be able to operate effectively in that area, as the faces of its team become familiar and their presence loses all strategic value.
3. Legal leverage is given to the defense
Overly detailed communications can become a powerful tool for defense attorneys. In court, it's easy to argue that the observed actions were not spontaneous but influenced by the employee’s awareness of being monitored. As a result, all the work done may be invalidated,causing financial and reputational damage to the institution.
Comunicare sì, ma con equilibrio
Notifying employees of the initiation of investigative checks is not mandatory, when the investigation concerns suspected abuse of paid leave (such as under Law 104/92), sick leave, questionable injuries, union permits, or other situations that may be formally justified but raise doubts.
This principle has been reaffirmed by the Italian Corte di Cassazione (judgment No. 15094 of June 13, 2018), which confirmed the full legitimacy of using private investigators—even in public employment— provided that the investigations are proportionate, motivated by concrete suspicions, and carried out in compliance with privacy regulations.
In such cases, there is no obligation to inform the employee: not about the tools used, nor the methods, timing, or the name of the agency involved. In fact, disclosing these details can compromise the entire operation, expose personnel, and defeat the very purpose of the investigation.
Limiting communication to a generic statement, without disclosing operational details, is not only legally permissible, but also serves to protect the public interest. What’s at stake is the effectiveness of the investigation, the safety of those involved, and the credibility of the institution seeking to address dishonest behavior.
Gli investigatori lavorano per tutelare l’ente, non per ostacolarlo
Corporate and workplace investigation professionals operate within the bounds of the law, but they need operational room that ensures discretion, invisibility, and precision timing.
Any undue exposure weakens their effectiveness, and ultimately undermines the investment made by the institution to safeguard itself and its honest employees.
Trasparenza sì, ma senza compromettere l’efficacia delle indagini
Un’investigazione annunciata in modo eccessivamente dettagliato perde di efficacia ancor prima di cominciare. Il rischio è quello di tutelare indirettamente chi adotta comportamenti scorretti, penalizzando chi agisce con correttezza e senso del dovere.
Transparency remains a core value, but it must be exercised with operational intelligence and strategic vision. In sensitive areas such as the monitoring of leave and formally justified absences, public institutions must strike a balance: communicate clearly and lawfully, without compromising the effectiveness of the protective tools at their disposal.
Avoiding overcommunication does not mean secrecy or lack of transparency, instead it means acting responsibly and protective of public interest.
English 
Italian