Councillor
Sentenced for Benefit Fraud
Gul
Nawaz (46), a Tory Councillor for Peterborough, and his son Akeel Ahmed (25)
have been sentenced to two-months in prison after being convicted of fraud
against the City Council.
Both
men pleaded guilty to obtaining property by deception following an application
to the Housing Benefit department stating that Ahmed was charged £65 per week
by his landlord Nawaz, neither had declared that they were related.
The
offence took place over a fifteen month period between January 1995 and April
1996 with Housing Benefit paying a total of £3,053.
Nawaz
was elected Councillor for Ravensthorpe in May this year and failed to declare
that he was under investigation at the time.
William
Dalglish, chairman of the magistrate’s bench, in passing the sentence said:
“We
have considered that you were a man of good character, and that you made a full
and frank admission of your guilt when questioned. But this offence occurred
consistently over a 15-month period and involved a large sum of money, and you
even sent a letter to the council after six months confirming that you were the
landlord."
Nawaz
showed no emotion as the sentence was being passed. His son was sentenced to a
one-month custodial for his part in the fraud and received a further month for
defrauding £356.20 from the council in a further scam, carried out between June
and September 2001, with his sister, Shabana Khauser (21).
Khauser had previously been fined £100 and ordered to pay £75 costs.
-----------------------------
“Breach
of Trust” Leads to Jail
A
Knowlsey Council employee has been sentenced at the High Courts after pleading
guilty to forgery and obtaining a money transfer by deception at Knowlsey
Magistrates Court earlier this year.
Paul
Stainze, from The Moorings, Lydiate, was acting as the principal manager in a
section of the council’s education department when he committed the fraud. Due
to his position, Stainze, could issue invoices up to the value of £20,000 a
time. In April 2001 he sent a bill to a firm of solicitors for £18,435.
Stainze
asked for the money to be paid in to his personal account and used it as part
payment for a new house. Stainze who had worked at the council since 1977, was
suspended in August last year and subsequently dismissed.
Mr
Justice Andrew Smith, sitting at the High Court in London, told Stainze he had
no choice but to jail him because of his “breach of trust”.
The
judge continued: “In view of the amount involved, the fairly sophisticated
nature of the offence, and the fact you can’t repay the balance, I don’t
consider I have any choice but to send you to prison.”
Stainze’s
Barrister, Andrew Ford, begged Mr Justice Smith to show mercy, and argued a
community punishment order or a suspended sentence would be more appropriate.
“He has lost his profession and is a disgrace to himself and those who have
attended with him today.”
Mr
Ford added that although Stainze was a man of good character who was
“candid” throughout the police inquiry into the fraud and had shown a
“high degree of remorse” for the crime.
Stainze
was given a four month custodial sentence and ordered to return £2,000 to the
council within 28 days and pay back the rest of the money in monthly instalments.
-----------------------------
Just
Ask: Community Legal Service
According
to the web site, “As part of its drive to increase justice for ordinary
people, the Government has set up a Community Legal Service (CLS). The idea was
for people to find help easily and feel confident in the quality of service they
get from legal service providers.”
Areas
covered on the site include Benefits, Communications and Media, Consumer
Affairs, Employment, Government, Law and Rights, Health and Social Care, Housing
and Homelessness, Immigration and Nationality, Money and Tax and Police and
Crime.
The
CLS is there to ensure that people can get information and help about their
legal rights and understand how to enforce them in the right place and at the
right time. Investigators should be aware of this as both a useful resource and
a sign that our clients are, quite rightly, becoming more and more aware of
their rights.
The site also introduces Community Legal Service Partnerships, a coming together
of organisations offering legal and advice services such as solicitors,
Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and many other organisations.
To visit the website, go to http://www.justask.org.uk/
The
True Cost of Benefit Fraud - Mike Neumann
So
it’s in the news again that the Government has no idea how much benefit fraud
is costing them. No surprises there then! Anyone who has worked in the field for
any length of time will tell you that government never has had the slightest
idea about how much fraud costs.
Let’s
take a look at the figures: The government’s statistics (compiled who knows
when by god knows who using whichever method seemed right at the time) suggested
that a figure of £2billion was lost each year through fraud.
The
all-powerful Commons public accounts committee has come out with an earth
shattering statement. It has discovered that without accurate statistics, it is
difficult to tell whether the Government's campaign against fraud is working or
not. I’m so glad they mentioned this – I’d never have worked it out
myself!
The
DWP apparently carries out detailed research into the extent of fraud in income
support and jobseeker's allowance. On the basis of these figures, it claims that
its anti-fraud strategy is working. Well that depends on your definition of
working.
In
2000-01, seven per cent of JSA payments, worth around £200 million, were proven
to be fraudulent. When you add mistaken JSA payments and cases involving
suspicion of fraud, the figure for JSA money going to those amounts to around £400
million, or 14 per cent of the budget.
Two
years earlier confirmed JSA fraud cost us all just over eight per cent of the
budget, or nearly £300 million, and the potential total going to those who
should not be getting it was over 20 per cent of the budget, at around £750
million.
Proven
income support fraud in 2000-01 was around 4 ½%, or around £570 million. Once
mistaken and suspected fraud is added to this we have a total of £1.3 billion,
or nearly ten per cent of the total budget.
And
this is where the figures stop adding up.
Firstly:
The figures are for confirmed fraud or overpayments that arise out of mistakes
made by the claimant. To refer to the figures as including suspected fraud is
misleading. Who suspects the fraud. What about the cases about which the DWP has
no suspicions. With the greatest respect to my old friend still working in the
investigation field, are the DWP suggesting that they are aware of all potential
fraud in the system?
Secondly:
What about all those that the government keeps taking out of the benefits system
– tax credits / pension credits and the like – what is the level fraud
there? As the PAC pointed out, equivalent figures are not available for other
parts of the benefits system because the DWP does not monitor fraud levels in
these benefits in the same way.
Let’s
be cynical for a moment and say that we have a group who commit fraud by not
reporting changes in their circumstances. A senior politician promises to reduce
benefit fraud – how do you do it?
Method
one: Invest heavily in fraud prevention and investigation including more staff,
quality training and state of the art equipment. Introduce new powers and back
their use, not restricting them to a small percentage of officers for use only
in extreme cases. Ensure that judicial system is aware of the true cost of
benefit fraud and publicise what you are doing. Result – reduction in fraud
leads to better figures.
Method
two: Produce a new ‘benefit system’ in which there is no requirement to
report changes between claim forms (which are issued every six months) – in
fact changes make no difference to the monies you receive. Sit back and report a
massive drop in fraud.
Of
course this only removes the fraud arising from changes in circumstances not
fraud from the outset but – hey – it’s a good way of getting the figures.
Got
to be worth a ‘reduction in fraud’ of a third, don’t you think?
Some
of those working within the system estimate benefit fraud as high as 25% in some
areas – not the 7% that government figure show. But even if these figure are
right, is this something to be proud of? What actually constitutes an acceptable
level of abuse? A commercial company might suggest a figure of 0.5% - so we’ve
got a way to go!
Actually investing in reducing benefit would make a huge difference to national spending. Or you can just go for the headlines and believe that all is well.
LA
Law – Not a Big Hit!
John
Prescott's attempt to modernise local government have been a failure, a select
committee of MPs said yesterday.
The
Deputy Prime Minister was the man responsible for English
local government during the last parliament when councils were told give up the
traditional committee system, in favour of an elected mayor, or a leader and
cabinet system – the one most authorities adopted.
The
select committee, chaired by the Labour MP Andrew Bennett
looked at the main aims of the bill, to speed up decision making, reduce
the amount of time spent by councillors in meetings and encourage participation
in local government – and concluded it had failed on all three counts.
All,
it seems, the Act has achieved is to increase the burden of red tape which
already sits on the shoulders of local councillors and council staff. The select
committee for transport, local government and the regions concluded in their
report, "In practice, not only has the workload of executive councillors
increased so that it is the equivalent of full-time employment, but
non-executive councillors report that they attend more meetings."
-----------------------------
Handling
Stolen Fuel!
The
theft of fuel from service stations and garages costs the industry an estimated
£12 million each year and some service stations have reported losing as much as
£1000 each month because of drive off thefts.
These
types of theft are called “bilking” and is basically to make off from a
debt, but it is also an offence by virtue of Section 3 of the Theft Act 1978.
The statutory title being “making off without payment” and this relates to a
person knowing that payment for goods or service is due on the spot. Knowing
that this is required or expected the person concerned then dishonestly makes
off.
This
is obviously becoming an ongoing problem for the garages to deal with and they
are starting to fight back by using various methods. The CCTV is a common sight
at service areas and garages but the thieves are countering these by employing
the use of disguises such as hats, hooded tops or dark glasses.
It
is not always an opportunist theft – because of the rising costs of fuel it is
becoming a business for people to trade in stolen fuel. These organised gangs
bring a vehicle to the pumps with extra cans in the boot or even a fitted
auxiliary tank. They choose a time when they know the staff will be too busy to
monitor the amount of fuel being taken and off they drive. As a result a car
with the extra tank can quite easily obtain £100 worth of fuel on one visit!
-----------------------------
28 Days for £33,000 – That’s
almost £50 an hour!
- Jody Randall
A man was sentenced
to twenty-eight days ifor a fraud which netted him £33,000.
What sort of signal does this send to potential fraudsters?
DWP Deputy Minister Malcolm Wicks has claimed in the past that, “. . . fraud
detection roots out benefit cheats and should serve as a strong reminder we
always pursue cases against fraudsters vigorously.” An excellent statement if
only the courts would back up the Government and Local Authority views.
In the following case we see how a Crown Court Judge looks at the behaviour of a
claimant, says he acted in an ‘audacious’ and ‘dishonest’ way to obtain
a large overpayment of benefits and then imposes a desultory sentence.
Alistair Bolland, aged 59, of Grayswood Drive, Holme Wood was sentenced to a 28
days in custody by a judge at Bradford Crown Court.
Bolland who suffered from a bad back and other health problems began receiving
Incapacity Benefit in 1996, but a few months later started working as a barman
at Holme Wood Social Club.
Between July 1996 and January 2000 Bolland was paid on average £142 per week
whilst also receiving Incapacity Benefit, Housing and Council Tax Benefit and
Disability Living Allowance. The total overpayment of these benefits was £33,290.21.
The court
was told during the trial that in March 1997 Bolland had applied for the higher
rate of DLA stating in his application that his ill health meant he needed his
wife to help him get dressed and that his past times of crown-green bowling and
going to the local social club, where he worked, had been effected. As a result
of the application Bolland was paid the higher rate of DLA.
Judge Peter Benson described the application for extra money as “an audacious
and calculated act of dishonesty. You were, all the time, working down at the
bar of a busy social club and, although I accept you weren’t doing any heavy
lifting, that is physically demanding work and you were working hard at the
time.”
In total Bolland admitted a total of 178 offences and asked for three similar
matters to be taken into consideration.
In mitigation Bolland’s barrister Mark Fletton said that he had begun helping
out at the club on a sporadic basis and was not aware the amount of money he
would receive would affect his benefits. He said that inquiries by Bolland’s
wife and assurances from other people suggested that he could earn up to £50
per week.
“The
nature of the employment has been described as working behind the bar which, in
usual the usual course, would raise the impression of somebody carrying barrels
up and down stairs and pulling pints.” Mr Fletton stressed that the social
club was aware of Bolland’s health problems and accommodated his condition.
In summing
up Judge Benson said that it soon became apparent to Bolland that he was earning
more than the £50 per week he had been told about and yet continued to claim
benefits and submit sick notes giving the impression he was incapable of work.
He was given a 28 day custodial sentence.
So, yes Mr Wicks I do agree that we pursue cases against fraudsters vigorously but when someone is given a twenty-eight day sentence for “an audacious and calculated act of dishonesty”, I believe that is no deterrent to anyone else – it is more likely to be seen as just a hazard of the job. After all, thirty-three grand for twenty eight days – where do I sign?
In the Loop
Credit card
fraudsters are doing their best to keep you ‘in the loop’ in an attempt to
empty your bank accounts.
Using a trick known as the ‘Lebanese Loop’, a piece of tape is slipped into
the card slot. When you insert your card, the loop retains the card, whilst
stopping the machine from reading it. The cashpoint asks for your number whilst
continuing to try to read the card. It then announces that the machine is
broken, cannot eject your card and advises you to “contact the issuing
branch.”
And
then…
Whilst you have been trying to key in the number, one of the gang was looking
over your shoulder. When it failed, he may, helpfully, have suggested that you
retype the number (so that he can get a good look at it). When you give up, he
walks away too. Seconds later his accomplice walks up to the machine and pulls
the loop from the slot, bringing your card with it.
Now they have your
card and your number. Off they trot to the nearest cashpoint and withdraw the
card limit. (And again the next day unless you contact your bank immediately –
with you liable for some or all of the losses!)
This is
not a new scam – it earned the nickname of Lebanese Loop about two and a half
years ago when the first to be arrested were Lebanese criminals working in
London – but it is on the rise with incidents reported throughout London
recently.
-----------------------------
Minister to
Investigate Asylum Group
Tessa Jowell, the
Culture Secretary, has announced an investigation into the Lottery funding paid
to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns – a group that helps
those who have had asylum applications refused to fight deportation orders.
Ms Jowell has declared that her interest in the matter is to maintain public
confidence in the administration of lottery grants in the wake of falling ticket
sales. Ministers are said to be concerned on two fronts: have the large sums
paid to the group been used for political purposes and is there any evidence
that the organisation encourages people to break the law?
The coalition has so far received £400,000 from the ‘Community Fund’ and a
further £340,000 is due to be paid shortly.
-----------------------------
Paying for Your Sympathy
Whenever
the price of Justice is mentioned it is normally the theoretical issues that are
debated or that it has actually cost £100,000 to hold a trial for the theft of
a tin of baked beans. But what about the actual cost of the Judges hearing the
case, well this could be enormous depending upon the length of trial etc.
But
there is a cost that is not normally considered and that is the cost of
lodgings, a minor detail you might think.
The Lord Chancellors office pays £5.63 million a year for judge’s lodgings
around the country. In addition each judge in lodgings receives £310.00 a week
to cover living expenses and entertainment costs, but if the judge is sharing
the accommodation with another judge the rate falls to £230.00 a week.
We are not talking about staying in a little B and B near to the court in
question, but an official residence. There are 33 official Judges’ lodgings
around the country and they are specifically for the use of the members of the
judiciary hearing trials. They are designed to provide a secure environment for
the judge and associated staff whilst allowing them to continue working. This is
because people forget that the judge does not just go home at the end of the day
but will usually continue working on the case whist at the lodgings, this is
when the summing up statements are drafted etc.
Also
included in the lodgings will be the use of cars to convey them to and from
court. This is because the location of the lodgings are not publicised for
security reasons and to allow for privacy.
Having stated that the lodgings are for the judiciary and staff, they are also
permitted to lodge their family and this is again to deal with long-term trials.
But economy is an issue with lodgings and if the judge exceeds the weekly
allowance the judge will be personally billed for the rest.
This is not a new scheme to provide the judiciary with a life of luxury but was
started hundreds of years ago to allow for the fact there were very few judges.
As a result they had to travel the country to hold trials and they were normally
from the upper classes and therefore required a certain standard of living. Just
like a number of legal issues that appear outdated the judge’s lodgings are
hanging on and perhaps even judges should be allowed the odd perk of the job.
-----------------------------
Disappearing Estate Agency
Police
and the Office of Fair Trading have received a number of complaints about the
apparent disappearance of a Nottingham estate agency. The company Arron Scargill
appear to have abandoned their offices that have now been repossessed by the
owners.
Landlords
and tenants are concerned about cash paid to the estate agents who also act as
letting agents. A number have reported that they have paid large deposits and
rent for properties, a landlord reported that he had rented out a property
through the agents but had received no payments. When the gentlemen visited the
address that the agency was dealing with he found that the tenant had left.
Other complaints include deposits being paid on the purchase of properties that
subsequently fell through and the deposits have not been returned.
Although there are rumours that the company has gone into liquidation this has
not been recorded with Companies House. The only trace of the company is a note
referring enquiries to the managing directors home, but there has been no
response at that address.
At
this stage a number of people are waiting to find out where the company has gone
and what has happened to their money.
-----------------------------
Shooting Incident
Two
members of staff from Erewash Housing, Cotmanhay, Derbyshire were recently shot
at whilst clearing an empty house in the area.
The two men were working at a house on Beresford Drive, Cotmanhay when they
heard a gunshot. Erewash Housing controls the former council properties in the
area and the men had just emptied the house when the incident occurred. They
described hearing the shot and the back of their vehicle was hit, they
immediately left the area.
Less than a month ago in the same area a small child was shot with a pellet
whilst in a park in Cotmanhay, though the incidents are similar police are not
linking them at this stage.
-----------------------------
Mutatis Mutandis
Have you
ever sat in court listening to a trial and wandered what they were talking
about. I am not talking about the case itself but when they start with all the
nice fancy words and phrases of blather.
Well it
appears Lord WOOLF, the Lord Chief Justice has realised this exact problem and
is willing to deal with it. Having already assaulted the civil courts it is now
the turn of the criminal judiciary. He wants the courts to become more user
friendly and easier to understand.
Lord WOOLF wants more plain English to be used in courts rather than the dead
language of Latin. In particular he has challenged the lawyers to come up with
an appropriate and simple definition of “pro bono” which is the Latin
regarding a lawyer offering a service free of charge.
When I
was a mere student and such Latin words were used, just like my fellow students
I would be constantly corrected on my pronunciation. But I think one of my peers
summed up the lectures nicely by declaring that if they could wheel in a two
thousand year old Roman to confirm the words we would all be happy. Because, as
the Lord Chief Justice appears to have noticed, it is a dead language and is
only of use to add a little flourish to proceedings.
So I for one applaud Lord WOOLF in his attempt to bring justice to the masses.
One of his great amendments to the civil system will already have been greatly
understood when he replaced “writ” with the words “claim form” as this
seems to be becoming an everyday saying.
To end I should explain that the title is Latin meaning “the necessary changes
are made.”
-----------------------------
Fraudweb
Day 2002
26th June 2002
Combating
Fraud – The Intelligence-Led Approach
Well
the experience of organising a one-day seminar, like the one above, can only be
compared to a ride on a huge rollercoaster. However for those of you who have
never attended a Fraudweb Day, let me tell you
what the day contains.
So what themes have previous Fraudweb Day events covered?
Fraudweb
Day 2000
covered ‘Combating Fraud – Within The
‘e’Government Agenda’ by examining
the virtual e-fraudster.
Fraudweb
Day 2001
looked into the areas of ‘Combating
Fraud – A Joined Up Approach’, through examining how and what joint
working meant.
Which
leads me nicely on to this year’s event.
Fraudweb
Day 2002
was recently held on the 26th June, at the Microsoft Village, Reading
with this year’s theme being ‘Combating
Fraud – The Intelligence Led
Approach’.
Kathryn
Barr MA PhD
(a forensic document examiner) from Document Evidence Ltd., provided a very
interesting overview of what intelligence/information can be gleaned from all
types of documents, and the methods used in this very specialised area of
forensic science.
Examples such as handwriting, signatures, perforations on paper, paper
watermarks, ink stamps and cheques were looked at, and comparisons made for
forgeries. Then a plastic blow up rabbit, with a threat message written onto it,
was pulled out of a hat (metaphorically not literally). The rabbit had been
crucial evidence in a previous case, where it had been used to demonstrate how
the writer was identified. Yes, and before you ask, the rabbit did lighten a
serious moment.
Next
onto the speakers podium was Tim
Skittrell. Tim is the Head of Fraud and Intelligence for the United Kingdom
Passport Office. His presentation covered a brief history of the passport and
what is needed to obtain a bonafide one, or a fraudulent one. (No difference I
hear you say, and yes you are right). Tim then went on to explain just how easy
it was to obtain a bogus passport provided you had done your homework correctly.
This really brought home the problems facing the UK Passport Office in
identifying fraudulent passport applications. However Tim then went on to spell
out the actions and preventative measures already in place or being put into
place. Again this was a very interesting and informative session on a high
profile area, which provided much food for thought.
The event’s Key Note speech this year, was from the
Rt Honourable Professor Steve Webb MP (DWP Spokesperson for the Liberal
Democrats). Steve’s speech passed
on his thoughts and views on what is actually wrong with the current welfare
benefit system. For instance he made the very valid comment that it is better to
design a system that encompasses fraud prevention at an introductory stage
rather than the current situation where repeated ongoing fixes are required to
plug the holes. (How many times have you heard the phrase, ‘we will simplify
the system’, only to find this makes the system more complicated and hence
provides the fraudsters with a greater open charter).
Other
issues raised included : -
Incentive
schemes-
a discussion took place on how local authorities need to be given the incentive
to stop fraud in the first place, alongside prosecution, and prevention
incentives. His view was that they all go hand in hand and should not be treated
in isolation.
Regulatory
Powers
– He talked about the investigation of crime, and the facilities/ technologies
currently in the hands of investigators. Were they joined up enough? Did the
right people have access to the data they needed within the realms of their
day-to-day jobs and what further steps could be taken? His view was that
information should be shared within a fraud prevention remit which is surely in
everybody’s interest. Obviously these types of questions brought out some very
stimulating debates and views from the audience.
Others
areas that Steve Webb discussed in his speech were: BFI reports and their
findings, for example should one be using the findings in authority ‘A’ to
assist authority ‘B. He also discussed the Tax Credit system
- will this help to prevent fraud, and what thoughts and pro-active
antifraud measures were put in place at the concept of these new schemes?
Steve
stayed for lunch where he was able to meet the delegates and take part in
further questions and discussion. For
further information on Steve Webb log on to his website www.stevewebb.org.uk.
The
last speaker of the day was Mike Neumann
(Director of ITS Training Services). His presentation started by looking at
fraud in general i.e. the current amount, the reduction targets set by the
government for 2002 (10%), 2004 (25%) and 2006 (50%). He then continued by
examining the whole issue of using data/intelligence to prevent and deter fraud.
Internal
and external data-sources were discussed, and then Mike sprang a very import
question on the delegates: ”Why
don’t we use and share data?’
He
then queried whether it was because we were frightened that we may be found to
fall foul of the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act or even both?
The
next 11 slides of Mike’s presentation went on to explain that solutions did
exist, and nobody should be frightened off using/sharing data. The key being to
ensure that it is done within the law. He covered Data Protection Exclusions,
Authorised Officer Powers, Consent, Lawful Authority, PLAN (Proportionate,
Lawful, Accountable, Necessary), Internal Policies, and Disclaimers on forms. He
finished with the very relevant and important message of:-
‘SHARED
DATA / INTELLIGENCE = GREATER INTELLIGENCE’.
What
a message to finish off a very well received and enjoyable day.
If
you don’t believe me, see for yourself. Visit the www.fraudweb.co.uk
site and look at the comments from the delegates themselves. Also if you want to
attend next year’s event, then please register, and add the site to your
favourites. The site is updated on a regular basis, with information relating to
the day-to-day workings and environment of the fraud investigator.
Released 1st August 2002