Short C.V.

Andy Grudko emigrated to South Africa from England in 1979 to take up a security and safety management post on the East Rand. In 1980 he saw a business opportunity and began offering electronic surveillance and counter-surveillance services on a part time basis, forming Grudko & Associates as a full time business in 1981. The firm grew quickly to become a full service investigation agency, based in Johannesburg, with agents in Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town. This year, on it’s 20th anniversary, the consultancy became a private - (Pty Ltd) - company, with branches in the US (Ca & Pa), UK, Australia, Canada and Israel and represented by agents in 43 other countries.
In addition to his security business Andy was a very active member of the SA Police Reserve from 1980 to 1989, spending 6 years with the Johannesburg Flying Squad (Brixton Radio), a year with SANAB and his last year with the Criminal Intelligence Division.

Andy has been President of the SA Council of Investigators for 7 of the past 9 years and sits on numerous business and government boards, including the South African Security Federation, and consulting to the Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee and the Police Reporting Office (police Internal Affairs).
He is a member of the Global Investigator's Network (Charter member), the Californian Association of Licensed Investigators, the World Association of Detectives and the Security Association of South Africa. He was the 2000 Chairman of the Gauteng Chapter of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals.
Andy has had 3 books and numerous articles published, has been on many TV and radio programs and is a frequent professional speaker and Chairman at security, investigation, intelligence and related conferences. He also wrote one third of the Security Officers Board Crime Investigation Module.
His company’s main services are criminal investigations, background checks and competitive intelligence.
His website is www.grudko.com

The Private Investigation Industry: Greater co-operation for security?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

When I arrived in this country in 1979 the common term for our industry was Private Detective. The words summoned up a boozy brawler walking the streets of New York or LA in a wide brimmed hat, toting a .38 special.
In about 1980 ‘Magnum PI’ hit the TV screens saying ‘I’m a Private Investigator, not a Detective’ and almost overnight the name changed. Now the PI was a great looking tall, fit guy with dimples in a Ferrari who hated violence but could take care of himself if necessary.
Spencer was the charming guy next door, more intellectual but with heavy connections.
Matt Houston was flash and silly, but had a very powerful computer data base, predicting an important tool for P.I.s in the 21st century.
Mike Hammer was, well, Mike Hammer - back to the booze and wide brimmed hat.
And now we have ‘Snoops’ - so unrealistic than no-one can take it seriously - except a group of licensed P.I.s in California, who have petitioned at local and State level to have the show taken off air because it ‘shows the profession in a bad light’ - only in California!

Of course it’s all just TV, but what was frightening in those early days was that there were people who believed that they too could be Magnum, Spencer, Houston or Hammer. The P.I. became a joke and the security industry distanced themselves from us. I can understand why.
In the ‘90s new names appeared - Corporate Investigator, Business Investigator and the latest is Forensic Investigator, following the trend of some auditors to have ‘Forensic Auditors’ (Forensic meaning ‘of Courts of Law’). This is like calling a traffic cop a Forensic Vehicle Recorder. It gives the impression of a professional person, probably in glasses and a suite, working at a computer.

Actually the job of the detective or investigator is the same - find the facts and/or catch the crooks. All that has changed are the tools, and in response, some of the methods.
But the main reason we don’t seem to know what to call ourselves is simple: image - and ours varies from the criminal, through bad joke, to a heroic rogue. But professional is not a term which is often used in conjunction with the title ‘Investigator’.
That’s a pity because there’s no doubt that there are some very experienced and professional investigators out there who can solve crimes and bring perpetrators to book without the aid of any state agency except perhaps the public prosecutor.
This can be of great importance to the security industry, which is essentially proactive and preventative - detecting, deterring and deflecting the criminals; whilst investigators are reactive, responding after an incident to catch those same criminals.
The skills of the two overlap and are complimentary, and should be a partnership working to the same end - detecting and stopping criminal acts, but coming from opposite directions. This is the norm in many countries. So why is there a problem in South Africa?

Well, to begin with, there is no doubt that the security profession is just that, a legislated, codified and answerable profession. Unsuitable elements can be weeded out, unprofessional practices stopped; today.
But when I arrived in this country the security industry was uncontrolled and actually out of control - much like the PI industry today.

And in those unregulated days there were professional security companies that got the job done, just as today there are unregulated - or to be more accurate - self regulated PI companies that render a professional service.
So the reality of the situation is that there are people out there, maybe people in your position, maybe you, who’ve had a bad experience with a P.I. company.

They shouldn’t feel too bad. I’ve been a P.I. for 20 years and I still have occasional bad experiences with P.I.s..

So where are P.I.s going and where do we fit into the security industry?

Well, I’ve always considered myself part of the security industry and I think it’s obvious that P.I.s who solve crimes and effect arrests and perhaps the recover stolen goods or funds are rendering a security service.
Many P.I.s have voluntarily registered themselves as Security Officers and built up relationships with clients in the security sector. In most cases these are well known names, investigators who have supplied proven, valuable services in the fight against crime, filling in some of the gaps left by our depleted police and justice systems.
But what about the P.I. who follows an unfaithful spouse, or who locates an absconded debtor or missing relative? This person may be efficient and ethical but he is obviously not rendering a security service.
His might not be the type of company you’re looking for, but what if he decides to expand his business, canvas your company? With a good sales pitch you might give this person a chance to do something he’s inexperienced in and incapable of. Do you want to be a part of his ‘learning curve’? I suspect not.
The serious PIs in this country started to seek legislation of the industry in the early ‘70s, and then again in the early ‘90s, but it’s only now, almost 30 years later that it looks like we’re going to get it. Government are at last taking us seriously and P.I.s are to be included in the imminent amendments to the Security Officers Act.
This means that you’ll be dealing with people and companies that have gone through the same kind of screening that you have and who are also, under the Skills Development Act, being monitored and controlled as far as training and social responsibility are concerned.
The days of the one man P.I. business which did everything are numbered. I have to admit that in the early days I too claimed I could offer a wide range of services - Civil investigations, criminal investigations, undercover operations, due diligence investigations, VIP Protection, surveillance, counter-surveillance, counter-terrorism ops., training, locksmithing, consulting, system design and more. This was what my peers were offering so I wasn’t going to be left behind.
The result was a shambles. Ex-cops, guys who ‘cleared out’ after National Service and ex-Rhodesian special forces members flooded the industry (it’s interesting that every Rhodesian male who crossed Biet Bridge was a Grey or Selous Scout, SAS, SB, CIO or at least RLI posted behind enemy lines. Who drove the trucks and cooked the food?).
The ‘80s standard response to any security problem was to install miles of the new-fangled ‘razor wire’ and erect a watchtower. Great at Sasol, weird at Woolworth’s.

Hopefully this means that the suspicion that the security industry has often displayed towards the P.I. industry will begin to fade as the chancers are weeded out and the professionals can be identified and grow.

Investigators investigate, fencers fence and alarmers alarm. We are as much a part of the security industry as anyone else who is involved in the prevention, detection or, solving of crime.

This development will be of importance to the security industry, especially if the security professional starts to see the genuine P.I. as another tool in his fight against crime.

Of course we don’t only come into the picture after a crime has taken place. One of our main preventative roles is pre-employment screening. At present the only commercial sector which has to, by law, check out the background of job applicants, is the gaming industry, under their Act.
But why, in our crime ridden society, do so few companies ‘check out’ staff before employing them? In so many cases a crime takes place, a suspect is found and the person’s history was there, on record, showing that he or she was a security risk.
What is the point of having access control, intruder alarms, CCTV and perimeter security if your company employs a convicted criminal and gives him an access card. He’s just going to smile at his colleagues as he mercilessly rips the heart out of their company.
In one parastatial of 154 staff we identified 12 people with criminal records - after a R 1.4 M fraud…..carried out by one of those convicted criminals. Most modern investigators have access to data basses and resources which the average security manager does not know about; data bases which can detect undesirables or predict conditions which endanger the security of the organisation.
P.I.s can also carry out constant, internal surveillance for employers, warning of criminal interest, illegal industrial action, sabotage, disgruntled employees, substance abuse and even industrial espionage.

A serious investigator can monitor trends and conditions, both local and international, which might endanger your company or client; from terrorists and cults to an organised crime focus.

The law is a slowly moving creature, as in deed it should be when changing society, but there is no doubt that the SOB’s intent is to remove the undesirable and incompetent from the Private Investigation industry. Until such time as our industry becomes a recognised profession you have a few steps you can take to protect your security environment from the ‘chancers’.
Most serious investigators will voluntarily have registered with the SOB
> A P.I. who is going to offer criminal related services will have an office, staff and infrastructure. The one-man-band operating from home is OK for matrimonial cases, but not for real investigation work.
> Check with the P.I.’s peers. The quickest way is probably through SACI.
> Ask for a complete c.v. and company history, including client list. A reputable P.I. will have a few major clients who will at least confirm his integrity. Saying he cannot release that info. is just a sign of a ‘wannabe'.
> Use your common sense. A PI should be a normal, intelligent, business orientated person who happens to have special skills and resources. If he comes over as ‘James Bond’, stay away.

And until the new legislation comes into effect observe the old adage - Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware.

Copyright 2000 AP Grudko