An employee allegedly emailed sensitive permit lists to a personal account. HR wants an internal review before any police call. Which investigation type and purpose does that describe?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
HR's internal look-see is the workplace version of a referee review — did someone break the house rules? That is an administrative investigation, not a criminal trial and not a civil lawsuit yet. Preserve evidence carefully in case those other paths open later.
Full Explanation
An administrative investigation determines whether organizational policy was violated and what internal employment or disciplinary action is warranted. When HR reviews an allegation that an employee emailed sensitive permit lists to a personal account before any police call, that activity is administrative in purpose: fact-finding against policy, not prosecution in open court and not yet a civil damages action. Evidence should still be preserved carefully because paths can escalate.
Criminal prosecution aims for public punishment under a higher burden of proof and is initiated through law enforcement and courts, not an HR-first internal review. A civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages is a private legal remedy track with different parties and standards; HR's preliminary review is not that suit. A regulatory examination by an external industry council is a different oversight channel and is not what the stem describes as HR's internal look.
Exam caveat: Match investigation type to purpose and burden. Internal policy questions → administrative; crime → criminal; damages between parties → civil; oversight body exams → regulatory.
Operational check: Freeze relevant mail and endpoint evidence, follow the HR/security investigation playbook, avoid contaminating chain of custody, decide with counsel whether facts justify law-enforcement referral, and document policy findings separately from any later legal track.