To prove a feigned illness, the documentation of two key aspects is particularly decisive: behaviour contrary to recovery on the part of the employee in question and/or the performance of another gainful activity (unauthorised secondary employment, undeclared work) during the period of certified sick leave.
Junus F. (name changed) worked for an industrial company in Hamburg. Almost two weeks before his employer’s consultation with Aaden Corporate Investigations Hamburg, he had submitted his first sick note and had not returned to work since. As his supervisor, Ms C., was aware, Junus F. also pursued an approved secondary occupation as a DJ (disc jockey). Out of interest, she occasionally followed his musical activities online. When she discovered party photos on a club website—allegedly taken during his sick leave—showing Junus F. at the DJ booth, she became suspicious and arranged a meeting with Aaden Detectives Hamburg.
Our Hamburg corporate detectives discussed the case with Ms. C. and the company’s HR manager. The investigators explained that in cases of feigned illness, surveillance of the target person is normally carried out from early morning with regard to behaviour contrary to recovery and the exercise of secondary employment. Since, however, there were very concrete grounds for suspicion in the case of Junus F., another approach was most likely more efficient: targeted surveillance at possible DJ appearances by the absent employee. Upon signing the investigative contract, it was agreed that our private detectives from Hamburg would first conduct online research on Junus F. and his pseudonym as a DJ in order to identify specific “events” at which he might be present.
As part of the online research, our Hamburg detectives were quickly able to identify various profiles of the target person on social media. There they found numerous pictures of Junus F. “spinning records” in various clubs, but none that had been posted during the period of illness. However, the Aaden private detectives Hamburg were to find another very useful piece of information: the next date and “location” for a performance by Junus F. That appointment was on a Thursday – through Friday inclusive, the target person was signed off sick.
Accordingly, the detectives of Aaden Detective Agency Hamburg scheduled the first operation for Thursday. A total of four observers were planned for this surveillance: two investigators were to take position from early evening to pick up Junus F. at his home address and document his arrival at the club, while two further detectives would take over on site and observe the actual work as a DJ. For this, in the interests of a credible cover story, personnel had to be selected who would not stand out in this milieu, meaning two comparatively young detectives. For this purpose, Aaden Corporate Investigations Hamburg had one male private investigator and one female detective available.
Unfortunately, no sighting of the target person was made at the home address by 22:30. The two observers from Aaden Detective Agency Hamburg set up on site, and at the same time the detective team for the club made its way to the second location. After waiting in the queue for a while, the investigators entered the premises at around 23:15. At that time, different DJs were active in different rooms, but the target person could not be identified.
It was not until around 00:30 that Junus F. took to the booth and began his work, which he continued into the early morning hours and thus provided ample evidence to confirm the suspicion of misconduct. Since the situation was clear after several hours of the target person working, our detectives from Hamburg left the location before the event ended.

Despite being unfit for work for his employer, the target person was active as a disc jockey deep into the night.
The target person’s supervisor, Ms. C., was somewhat enraged by Junus F.’s behaviour when the private detectives of Aaden Detective Agency Hamburg informed her of the investigative results the following day. She sounded even more irritated a few hours later on the phone, because Junus F. had submitted another sick note, which would extend his absence from the company by one week. Since another DJ date for the same period had become known during the online research, our Hamburg corporate detectives were to carry out a further operation on the advice of the legal counsel of the injured company.
The detective teams were deployed in exactly the same way as during the previous operation. The only difference: the observers at the home address were to start two hours earlier than last time. But even that did not help: there was no sighting at the residential property. When Junus F. had still not been seen in the club by 01:30, our female detective from Hamburg conducted a covert inquiry with a member of the venue staff. The target person had unfortunately had to cancel at short notice due to a family matter and would therefore not be performing that night.
The detectives of Aaden Corporate Investigations Hamburg ended the operation and submitted their report the following day. Since no further sick note from Junus F. had been received by Saturday afternoon, the assignment was closed. According to the legal counsel of the injured company, the evidence gathered in the first operation as well as the findings from the online research would be sufficient.