Should forum members report scammers?

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

This is an issue in which I have a personal interest as I've been a Benefit Fraud Investigator for nearly 17 years. I would add I'm an investigator in the UK not Ireland, and while I've spoken to counterparts in DSW I do not claim to be an expert in DSW rules.

In the UK Benefit fraud is a crime, covered by either the Social Security Fraud Act or the Fraud Act. Its theft.

Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.

By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury. You are merely alerting the DSW to a possible irregularity. No investigator is going to pull someone in just on the basis of an anonymous telephone call/letter. This is merely a referral which will be investigated.

My investigations have to be carried out in the same way as a Police investigation, and any interview has to be conducted in accordance to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) the person is therefore cautioned, advised of their rights and the interview is taped.

The UK Social Security budget comes to approx £120 billion per year. It is believed that 10% of this lost through fraud and error.

I am unfortunately limited In what I can and cannot say.

As Investigators we are not in the business of stopping genuine claimants from receiving what they are entitled to receive.

Regards

Isn't it true that the UK treat anyone under investigation as "guilty until proven innocent" and withhold benefits, pending investigation, regardless of hardship, or, of course, eventual outcome?

And don't you think that, in itself, is "punishment without trial"?

Maverick88

aare wrote: »

Isn't it true that the UK treat anyone under investigation as "guilty until proven innocent" and withhold benefits, pending investigation, regardless of hardship, or, of course, eventual outcome?

And don't you think that, in itself, is "punishment without trial"?[/quot

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt it will be suspended pending a decision. However there has to be evidence to support any suspension and subsequent termination.

Maverick88

I would add that the evidence is presented to someone independent of the Investigation team. An fraud investigator cannot cancel a claim, this has to be undertaken by a Decision Maker (DM). The investigator is not judge and jury

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt it will be suspended pending a decision. However there has to be evidence to support any suspension and subsequent termination.

Would you agree that "suspension" deprives the claimant of his means of livelihood (in direct contravention of the magna carta, incidentally) without trial, for an unspecified period of time?

Do you have any thoughts (or official viewpoints) on how the claimant is supposed to live, without means, in the event that he is innocent?

(Personally I would never wish to have any part in placing an innocent person in such an impossible position.)

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

I would add that the evidence is presented to someone independent of the Investigation team. An fraud investigator cannot cancel a claim, this has to be undertaken by a Decision Maker (DM). The investigator is not judge and jury

I am not "getting at" you Maverick, but you did choose to come here, and announce that:

"By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury."

When, as benefits can be "suspended", without trial, as a result of such a report, that is not, strictly, true, is it?

Maverick88

aare wrote: »

I am not "getting at" you Maverick, but you did choose to come here, and announce that:

"By reporting someone you are not being judge and jury."

When, as benefits can be "suspended", without trial, as a result of such a report, that is not, strictly, true, is it?

A benefit claim would not be suspended merely on the basis of a telephone call. So strictly it is true.

As I pointed out, there has to be evidence and a telephone call or letter from a member of the public is not evidence it is merely intelligence. A lot of things happen between receipt of intel and suspension, which I will not go into.

As for feeling got at, not at all, I spent working years working on the front counter of a DHSS office assisting claimants where I was threatened everyday (usually I gonna f**king kill you) and sworn at every couple of minutes. However 17 years as Fraud officer and only threatened once, strange that.

As for depriving someone of their livelihood, if they're working and claiming it fairly obvious that their benefit livelihood is not required as they have an income, and before you ask we would already have evidence of that income. Again not going to go into how we get that.

There is a whole raft of legislation that we have to adhere to, it is not just a case of person rings up reports fraudster we drive around in the Mk3 Capri ala Professionals (no doubt showing my age with that)and kick the door in shouting "Fraud Squad".

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

As I pointed out, there has to be evidence and a telephone call or letter from a member of the public is not evidence it is merely intelligence. A lot of things happen between receipt of intel and suspension, which I will not go into.

I should hope you would not! Not least because those *things* must surely vary wildly, by their very nature from case to case.

However, the one common factor is that those *things* hardly need to be conclusive before benefits are suspended, do they?

Maverick88 wrote: »

As for depriving someone of their livelihood, if they're working and claiming it fairly obvious that their benefit livelihood is not required as they have an income, and before you ask we would already have evidence of that income.

But as there is no requirement for that evidence to be conclusive prior to benefit being suspended, there is, equally, not necessarily any income at all, is there?

Maverick88 wrote: »

Again not going to go into how we get that.

I am starting to wonder if you ever, really "go into" anything at all, and can you blame me?;)

Maverick88 wrote: »

There is a whole raft of legislation that we have to adhere to, it is not just a case of person rings up reports fraudster we drive around in the Mk3 Capri ala Professionals (no doubt showing my age with that)and kick the door in shouting "Fraud Squad".

I should hope you don't! (Particularly the mk3 Capri - an embarrassment to HM Government, if ever there was one) But the fact still remains that you do suspend benefit without conclusive evidence and there are numerous cases where the party involved turned out to be innocent, and without other means during that suspension period...thus "deprived of the means of his livelihood" which means, in effect that a caller can be "judge and jury" on a whim, doesn't it?

BroomBurner

Aare, I would think that Maverick has explained very clearly that there guidelines and actions followed through before the stopping of someone's benefits. He even said that benefits would be suspended in cases where they have evidence that the person in question has an additional income (i.e. breaking the law in my mind).

Perhaps you should read his posts again, they were pretty clear cut to me.

old boy

eddiehobbs wrote: »

To all those who say they wouldnt report welfare fraud spare a thought for the cystic fibrosis sufferers who wont be getting their 30 million euro unit because there isnt enough money, welfare fraud accounts for considerably more than this every year,

just a thought........

yeah and what about the broken promise about tds incomes in the recent budget, get them scammers first, on the news last evening a certain b. aherne is receving 240 euro monthly, to get around his constintuency, and he did not know he was recieveing it, my pension is 209 weekly, so if i could get a days work which i cannot as i am disabled, then i am a scammer.
just a fact

aare

BroomBurner wrote: »

Aare, I would think that Maverick has explained very clearly that there guidelines and actions followed through before the stopping of someone's benefits. He even said that benefits would be suspended in cases where they have evidence that the person in question has an additional income (i.e. breaking the law in my mind).

Perhaps you should read his posts again, they were pretty clear cut to me.

Seemed clear cut to me too...he *very clearly* explained that benefits could be, suspended without conclusive evidence. End of

The Brits do have a rather odd legal system y'know...strangest things...for example, I know it is illegal for a British Civil Servant to specify which area he works in...might even be "high treason", isn't that silly?


Regardless, very few would chance it, and when you take into account the kind of technology our friends at the FO would have available to track anything like that, if they were bored enough...well you can't really blame them, can you?

BroomBurner

aare wrote: »

Seemed clear cut to me too...he *very clearly* explained that benefits could be, suspended without conclusive evidence. End of

The Brits do have a rather odd legal system y'know...strangest things...for example, I know it is illegal for a British Civil Servant to specify which area he works in...might even be "high treason", isn't that silly?


Regardless, very few would chance it, and when you take into account the kind of technology our friends at the FO would have available to track anything like that, if they were bored enough...well you can't really blame them, can you?

I don't really understand where your dislike for someone doing their job is coming from.

To me, it's fairly black and white. If you're on disability or welfare and you work for extra cash, you're commiting a crime. Simple as. If you're able to work, you should not be receiving benefits.

From what Maverick said above, benefits would only be stopped once they have evidence that there is fraud afoot. If you want to ignore what he said, then that's ok. You only show yourself up for it.

aare

BroomBurner wrote: »

I don't really understand where your dislike for someone doing their job is coming from.

I didn't say I had any "dislike"...please don't put words in my mouth.

BroomBurner wrote: »

From what Maverick said above, benefits would only be stopped once they have evidence that there is fraud afoot.

No, what he actually said was:

Maverick88 wrote:

If there is evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt

"In Doubt" - very different thing...hardly conclusive.

BroomBurner wrote: »

If you want to ignore what he said, then that's ok. You only show yourself up for it.

Is that your best shot?
:rolleyes:

Maverick88

Dear all,

You'll have to forgive this post if it jumps about (never been good at cutting and pasting).

AARE: You are indeed correct in one respect in that I am unable to say many things, which you may think its because I'm wanting to avoid answering some of your questions/comments, however its all covered by the Offical Secrets Act. There is also the point that I'm cant go into specifics of how we investigate cases.

As far as the legislation we use I have to adhere to:

Human Rights Act (HRA)
Criminal Procedure Investigation Act (CPIA)
Data Protection Act (DPA)
Regulation of Investigtory Powers Act (RIPA)

All cases we investigate are dealt with in the same way as a Police investigation which is why we interview people in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

As these cases may end up in Maristrates or Crown Court the evidence has to be beyond reasonable doubt for any conviction to be obtained.

I get into many things believe me. Cases can be anything from Working and Claiming to large scale multiple identity fraud.

As I mentioned earlier we work on evidence not intelligence, the two can get confused ala the whole weapons of mass destruction where you had intelligence presented as being evidence.

And how dare you impune the Mk3 Capri, a fine vehicle. . . just a shame you weren't able to brake in the thing going into corners, or indeed striaghts.

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

AARE: You are indeed correct in one respect in that I am unable to say many things, which you may think its because I'm wanting to avoid answering some of your questions/comments, however its all covered by the Offical Secrets Act. There is also the point that I'm cant go into specifics of how we investigate cases.

Nice try, but I am familiar enough with the Official Secrets act to know what is, and what is not covered by it and not to ask questions with answers likely to be in contravention of it...I am referring more to your risking the final scene in "Braveheart" (still mostly on statute for high treason) by declaring which branch of the Brit Civil Service you work for...on a server, on foreign soil too...quite remarkable that...:D

Maverick88 wrote: »

the evidence has to be beyond reasonable doubt for any conviction to be obtained.

Which is all a bit moot in circumstance where any old (sic) "evidence that continued entitlement is now in doubt" is sufficient to suspend benefits, and deny the claimant his means of livelihood while you sort it out.

NOTHING that any court can hand out is a worse penalty than being denied the means of survival.

Maverick88 wrote: »

And how dare you impune the Mk3 Capri, a fine vehicle. . . just a shame you weren't able to brake in the thing going into corners, or indeed striaghts.

Perhaps only when there are four of you?

Maverick88

Not foreign soil to me- one of only a handful of a very large Irish family born out of Ireland, however I get your point.


Never watched Braveheart, in fact refused to watch it so your point is lost there on me.

As for the issue of suspending benefit while we sort it out, you'll find the vast majority of investigators will have all the evidence gathered at the stage that an interview under caution is conducted.

The interview will then be the persons opportunity to give their version of events/explanation whatever you wish to call it. It is usually at this stage that benefit would be suspended if its going to be

A person can appeal a suspension, again this is done independently of the Investigation team.

Think the point I'm trying to make is that everything we do we're accountable for and have to justify to someone independent of us

And again I would make the point that just because a memeber of the public reports something does not mean a claim will just be suspended on the basis of that call/letter. It means the start of an investigation. Which may or indeed may not result in loss of benefit and possible prosecution.

All investigations are done with an open mind not a presumption of guilt.

With that I bid you a good weekend, look forward to seeing any comments on Monday.

aare

Maverick88 wrote: »

Not foreign soil to me- one of only a handful of a very large Irish family born out of Ireland, however I get your point.

"Foreign soil" in terms of the provisions of the official secrets act.

Maverick88 wrote: »

Never watched Braveheart, in fact refused to watch it so your point is lost there on me.

Does "hung, drawn and quartered" ring any bells? In relation to "high treason"?

Maverick88 wrote: »

As for the issue of suspending benefit while we sort it out, you'll find the vast majority of investigators will have all the evidence gathered at the stage that an interview under caution is conducted.

The interview will then be the persons opportunity to give their version of events/explanation whatever you wish to call it. It is usually at this stage that benefit would be suspended if its going to be

So it is only, by the luck of the draw, in a MINORITY of cases that an innocent claimant can have benefit suspended without conclusive evidence...how reassuring...for anyone who is NOT caught between those particular stools, anyway...

Maverick88 wrote: »

A person can appeal a suspension, again this is done independently of the Investigation team.

An the appeal procedure takes how long? Without money for food or rent, let alone phone calls, bus fares, even stamps...

That is probably a bit moot, isn't it?

Maverick88 wrote: »

Think the point I'm trying to make is that everything we do we're accountable for and have to justify to someone independent of us.

I should hope so!

Maverick88 wrote: »

And again I would make the point that just because a memeber of the public reports something does not mean a claim will just be suspended on the basis of that call/letter.

Yes but it COULD be, couldn't it? And sometimes is...

Maverick88 wrote: »

With that I bid you a good weekend, look forward to seeing any comments on Monday.

Y'all have a good weekend too...:D

Quartet

Quartet wrote: »

Agree. Where there is definite proof of fraud being committed (where somebody is claimining something they have no entitlement to), what is best for everyone should dictate our actions (the greater good). If there are flaws in the Social Welfare system it does not follow that individuals should take advantage on it and choose to commit fraud. It only takes one person to ignore what is wrong for it to being to be accepted as the norm.

Maverick88 wrote: »

...Benefit fraud is not a victimless crime.

Almost €476 million in Social Welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures in 2008, an increase of €29million on the previous year,

For those whose interest is concerned with the common good and not self interested fraud I include the the following contacts for reporting welfare fraud


Reporting possible fraud
The Central Control Section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs accepts reports of possible fraud offered by members of the public in relation to the Department’s schemes.
Reports are accepted by email, phone or in writing. All reports are dealt with in confidence. A member of the public may give details anonymously.
Contact Details:
By email: central.control@welfare.ie
By phone: (01) 704 3000, ask for Central Control Section,
By Post: Central Control Division, Shannon Lodge, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim.

Ref

old boy

if a person is being investigated are they entitled see the written claim by a member of the public against them,

Quartet

old boy wrote: »

if a person is being investigated are they entitled see the written claim by a member of the public against them,

I presume that is if the investigation is actually activated by a written claim. What happens where the claim is generated by the DSW or Telephone?

BroomBurner

Quartet, don't presume anything, Old Boy didn't provide any links to evidence to support his claim. I'll believe him when he does.

This has to be the weirdest thread I've ever read through. Aare, you really come across as someone with a problem with authority, and a tad petty too.

aare

BroomBurner wrote: »

Aare, you really come across as someone with a problem with authority, and a tad petty too.

You think matters of life and death for weaker, less fortunate, people are "petty"?

Figures...

I have a problem with people who focus on trying to find pointless, legally sanctioned, ways to hurt other people, not because it solves anything...it doesn't, often it makes the overall picture far worse, but just because it makes them feel good.

Quartet

BroomBurner wrote: »

Quartet, don't presume anything, Old Boy didn't provide any links to evidence to support his claim. I'll believe him when he does.

This has to be the weirdest thread I've ever read through. Aare, you really come across as someone with a problem with authority, and a tad petty too.

Conceded

rugbynut

The way I see it is the de-frauders are the people who are hurting other people - they are the ones who are taking money out of other peoples pockets. Should we turn a blind eye to this? Every report should be investigated thoroughly and if they are found to be guilty of fraud they should be punished, severely.

aare wrote: »

You think matters of life and death for weaker, less fortunate, people are "petty"?

Figures...

I have a problem with people who focus on trying to find pointless, legally sanctioned, ways to hurt other people, not because it solves anything...it doesn't, often it makes the overall picture far worse, but just because it makes them feel good.

jmayo

This thread really pi**es me off.
Why do Irish people conintue in this thinking that the system being defrauded is some fu**ing mythical entity or equivalent to the Brits of old :mad:
It is you, me and everyone else in this country, be they taxpayers contributing or welfare recipients receiving.
The sooner people cop onto this, the sooner this country grows up and stops being a banana republic par excellence.

By someone defrauding the system for a few quid, it means that there is a few quid less for some other deserving welfare case, a few quid less for your kids school building, a few quid less for that outpatient centre or local clinic.
Ah but here comes old the refrain "it is only a few quid"
All the few quids add up.

By people turning a blind eye and this "ah sure fair fu**ks to them for finding a loophole" we are just propagating the banana republic.

Then people complain about the government, the bankers and the regulators.
They are just mirroring it seems a sizeable chunk of our population, who probably voted that chancer supreme bertie back into power.

The inept, incompetent and unethical government, the incompetent regulators, the greedy bank executives and corrupt developers are just doing it on a grander scale and we tolerate it instead of fu**ing them out once and for all.

No wonder we are in such sh**.
We get the government and leaders we deserve.

Quartet

jmayo wrote: »

...By someone defrauding the system for a few quid, it means that there is a few quid less for some other deserving welfare case, a few quid less for your kids school building, a few quid less for that outpatient centre or local clinic.
Ah but here comes old the refrain "it is only a few quid"
All the few quids add up.

By people turning a blind eye and this "ah sure fair fu**ks to them for finding a loophole" we are just propagating the banana republic.
...

Agree. The sooner we stop excusing the rot and start to take responsibility for ourselves then the sooner we can start to develop a fairer and more equal society