>Police are dropping fraud investigations if victims have been warned about scams and dismissing complaints if further inquiry is not considered “cost effective”, The Times has learnt.
>Forces were accused of “victim blaming” with cases given a lower priority if detectives assessed that a complainant’s conduct and found they may have “contributed to the loss” by being alerted about a transaction.
>Several forces in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police, may also screen out fraud cases “where the consequences of an investigation in terms of length of sentence or financial penalty are not considered to be cost-effective”.
>The scale of fraud, which costs the economy £137 billion annually, means that the vast majority of reports are not investigated. Action Fraud, the national reporting hub, receives 35,000 reports a month and sends 3,000 to forces for possible investigation. There were a total 965,162 Fraud and Computer Misuse Act offences in the year to March, of which only 0.5 per cent were charged or summonsed.
>Matt Parr, an inspector of constabulary who has warned of a poor police response to fraud, said he was alarmed that some forces were considering victim conduct when they considered which cases to investigate. He said: “It is effectively blaming victims for being victims of crime, which is a novel and worrying approach for police to take.”
>Parr pointed out that police did not assess traditional crime that way: “Just imagine that as a philosophy for dealing with crime, applied in other areas. ‘Oh, we did warn you that there’s a range of break-ins in your area, so sorry, we’re not interested in your burglary’.
>“Or, ‘Everyone knows that’s a rough pub, so if you went in there and got beaten up, then tough’. That’s the philosophical approach that they’re taking to fraud crimes, and I just don’t think it stands up to scrutiny.”
>Parr said that as well as diverting more police resources into fraud, there were a string of “non-earth-shattering” initiatives that could have a disproportionately beneficial effect on the fight against fraud. They included “doubling the effort of prevention, joining it up with evaluation programmes, having much more engagement with the private sector”.
>Police are facing increased scrutiny of how they handle fraud as it is now the most significant crime type. The Times examined fraud investigation policies for forces across England and Wales. Most emphasised that factors such as victim vulnerability, and cases where a linked series of crimes were apparent, meant that frauds should be prioritised.
>Several, including the Met and Merseyside Police, the third largest in England and Wales, say victim conduct can be part of the consideration. Some policies appeared to suggest that public warnings, such as a generic alert on Twitter, could be taken into account.
>Merseyside’s guidance says cases could become a lower priority where “victims ignored guidelines designed to prevent them becoming victims”.
>The charity Victim Support warned that such an approach ignored the complexity of fraud and the sophisticated, convincing techniques fraudsters deployed to persuade and coerce.
>Wayne Stevens, its national fraud lead, said: “That someone should have their case de-prioritised because of action they have taken is the wrong approach, and better protection by banks and effective prosecution of criminals must be the route to reducing this crime.”
>City of London Police, the lead force for fraud, says it would never consider victim conduct as a reason to de-prioritise a case. It is among forces that do consider cost effectiveness, for example when money is moved immediately overseas. Other forces consider whether the potential custodial sentence would justify the police resource.
>__Case study: “The true impact of fraud is consistently underestimated”__
>When Phil Jones found he had been defrauded as he was having chemotherapy for prostate cancer, the impact was “devastating” (Fiona Hamilton writes).
>Jones, 77, who had £18,000 stolen, said he was taken to a “very dark place where I thought I’d had enough of life”, adding: “The chemotherapy had taken all my strength away, I wasn’t in the best of health. I wasn’t suicidal, but I had a moment where I thought, ‘Goodnight Vienna, it’s been a great life’ .”
>Jones, who runs a golf course supply business, was targeted by hackers purporting to work for the National Crime Agency. In August 2020, they asked him to look at his bank accounts.
>When he accessed his bank Jones could see transfers totalling £50,000 between banks in Pakistan, Kuwait and Afghanistan, which looked like money laundering. They had been fabricated.
>The fraudsters told him that it was linked to terrorism funding, and asked Jones to help them catch the culprits. They got him to set up a bitcoin account, which involved entering his bank details and, from there, they got complete control of his personal and business accounts.
>For two weeks, Jones was inundated with calls as the gang updated him on the supposed “progress” their investigation was making, and warned him to tell no one.
>He became suspicious and called the NCA, realising he had been defrauded.
>The scammers took his money from him by moving from smaller to larger withdrawals. His bank closed his business account because of fraud concerns, but Jones did not see their texts because the fraudsters also had control of his phone.
>Jones had just finished his sixth round of chemotherapy at the time and was particularly vulnerable. With the help of his daughter he got his money back from the bank, but the fraudsters were never caught.
>Jones had just finished his sixth round of chemotherapy at the time and was particularly vulnerable. With the help of his daughter he got his money back from the bank, but the fraudsters were never caught.
>Jones, who is now in remission, was visited by his local police force who were more concerned about his welfare than investigating the crime. Because the fraud was an overseas operation, Jones said, there was no prospect of catching the gang.
>Jones said he was speaking out to make sure others were aware of such scams: “I like to think I’m a wise old owl, but they really caught me out.”
>He was assisted by the charity Victims Support, which said the number of fraud victims referred for help had more than doubled in five years.
>Wayne Stevens, the charity’s national fraud lead, said: “The true impact of fraud is consistently underestimated. It is too often seen as a victimless crime, when in fact being defrauded decimates lives.
>“Victims not only have to cope with financial losses – which can be life changing – but the trauma of being targeted can also be devastating for people’s mental health or lead to the breakdown of close relationships.
>“Sadly, there is a lot of shame and stigma associated with fraud, and it is so vital that victims do not blame themselves, or suffer alone and in silence. Anyone who has been affected by fraud can contact Victim Support for free, confidential support.”
Looking at you, Hamilton Accies.
> Parr pointed out that police did not assess traditional crime that way: “Just imagine that as a philosophy for dealing with crime, applied in other areas. ‘Oh, we did warn you that there’s a range of break-ins in your area, so sorry, we’re not interested in your burglary’.
>
> “Or, ‘Everyone knows that’s a rough pub, so if you went in there and got beaten up, then tough’. That’s the philosophical approach that they’re taking to fraud crimes, and I just don’t think it stands up to scrutiny.”
It isn’t quite the same though, is it? As the article goes on to explain, the plan is for the police to de-prioritise cases where the person ignored the guidelines. This doesn’t equate to their examples. It’s not “Well, it’s your own fault for living in an area where there are break-ins” or “it’s your own fault for going in to a bad pub”, it’s more akin to “well, if you must insist on leaving the doors unlocked when you go out and your valuables next to the window…” or “you were told repeatedly to walk away before the guy punched you”.
Police resources are limited. If some idiot is told a hundred times that they’re walking into a scam, and they then do everything in their power to circumvent all the measures which they are directly told are there to protect them from being scammed, do they really deserve as much police support as someone who’s genuinely been duped?
3 comments
>Police are dropping fraud investigations if victims have been warned about scams and dismissing complaints if further inquiry is not considered “cost effective”, The Times has learnt.
>Forces were accused of “victim blaming” with cases given a lower priority if detectives assessed that a complainant’s conduct and found they may have “contributed to the loss” by being alerted about a transaction.
>Several forces in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police, may also screen out fraud cases “where the consequences of an investigation in terms of length of sentence or financial penalty are not considered to be cost-effective”.
>The scale of fraud, which costs the economy £137 billion annually, means that the vast majority of reports are not investigated. Action Fraud, the national reporting hub, receives 35,000 reports a month and sends 3,000 to forces for possible investigation. There were a total 965,162 Fraud and Computer Misuse Act offences in the year to March, of which only 0.5 per cent were charged or summonsed.
>Matt Parr, an inspector of constabulary who has warned of a poor police response to fraud, said he was alarmed that some forces were considering victim conduct when they considered which cases to investigate. He said: “It is effectively blaming victims for being victims of crime, which is a novel and worrying approach for police to take.”
>Parr pointed out that police did not assess traditional crime that way: “Just imagine that as a philosophy for dealing with crime, applied in other areas. ‘Oh, we did warn you that there’s a range of break-ins in your area, so sorry, we’re not interested in your burglary’.
>“Or, ‘Everyone knows that’s a rough pub, so if you went in there and got beaten up, then tough’. That’s the philosophical approach that they’re taking to fraud crimes, and I just don’t think it stands up to scrutiny.”
>Parr said that as well as diverting more police resources into fraud, there were a string of “non-earth-shattering” initiatives that could have a disproportionately beneficial effect on the fight against fraud. They included “doubling the effort of prevention, joining it up with evaluation programmes, having much more engagement with the private sector”.
>Police are facing increased scrutiny of how they handle fraud as it is now the most significant crime type. The Times examined fraud investigation policies for forces across England and Wales. Most emphasised that factors such as victim vulnerability, and cases where a linked series of crimes were apparent, meant that frauds should be prioritised.
>Several, including the Met and Merseyside Police, the third largest in England and Wales, say victim conduct can be part of the consideration. Some policies appeared to suggest that public warnings, such as a generic alert on Twitter, could be taken into account.
>Merseyside’s guidance says cases could become a lower priority where “victims ignored guidelines designed to prevent them becoming victims”.
>The charity Victim Support warned that such an approach ignored the complexity of fraud and the sophisticated, convincing techniques fraudsters deployed to persuade and coerce.
>Wayne Stevens, its national fraud lead, said: “That someone should have their case de-prioritised because of action they have taken is the wrong approach, and better protection by banks and effective prosecution of criminals must be the route to reducing this crime.”
>City of London Police, the lead force for fraud, says it would never consider victim conduct as a reason to de-prioritise a case. It is among forces that do consider cost effectiveness, for example when money is moved immediately overseas. Other forces consider whether the potential custodial sentence would justify the police resource.
>__Case study: “The true impact of fraud is consistently underestimated”__
>When Phil Jones found he had been defrauded as he was having chemotherapy for prostate cancer, the impact was “devastating” (Fiona Hamilton writes).
>Jones, 77, who had £18,000 stolen, said he was taken to a “very dark place where I thought I’d had enough of life”, adding: “The chemotherapy had taken all my strength away, I wasn’t in the best of health. I wasn’t suicidal, but I had a moment where I thought, ‘Goodnight Vienna, it’s been a great life’ .”
>Jones, who runs a golf course supply business, was targeted by hackers purporting to work for the National Crime Agency. In August 2020, they asked him to look at his bank accounts.
>When he accessed his bank Jones could see transfers totalling £50,000 between banks in Pakistan, Kuwait and Afghanistan, which looked like money laundering. They had been fabricated.
>The fraudsters told him that it was linked to terrorism funding, and asked Jones to help them catch the culprits. They got him to set up a bitcoin account, which involved entering his bank details and, from there, they got complete control of his personal and business accounts.
>For two weeks, Jones was inundated with calls as the gang updated him on the supposed “progress” their investigation was making, and warned him to tell no one.
>He became suspicious and called the NCA, realising he had been defrauded.
>The scammers took his money from him by moving from smaller to larger withdrawals. His bank closed his business account because of fraud concerns, but Jones did not see their texts because the fraudsters also had control of his phone.
>Jones had just finished his sixth round of chemotherapy at the time and was particularly vulnerable. With the help of his daughter he got his money back from the bank, but the fraudsters were never caught.
>Jones had just finished his sixth round of chemotherapy at the time and was particularly vulnerable. With the help of his daughter he got his money back from the bank, but the fraudsters were never caught.
>Jones, who is now in remission, was visited by his local police force who were more concerned about his welfare than investigating the crime. Because the fraud was an overseas operation, Jones said, there was no prospect of catching the gang.
>Jones said he was speaking out to make sure others were aware of such scams: “I like to think I’m a wise old owl, but they really caught me out.”
>He was assisted by the charity Victims Support, which said the number of fraud victims referred for help had more than doubled in five years.
>Wayne Stevens, the charity’s national fraud lead, said: “The true impact of fraud is consistently underestimated. It is too often seen as a victimless crime, when in fact being defrauded decimates lives.
>“Victims not only have to cope with financial losses – which can be life changing – but the trauma of being targeted can also be devastating for people’s mental health or lead to the breakdown of close relationships.
>“Sadly, there is a lot of shame and stigma associated with fraud, and it is so vital that victims do not blame themselves, or suffer alone and in silence. Anyone who has been affected by fraud can contact Victim Support for free, confidential support.”
Looking at you, Hamilton Accies.
> Parr pointed out that police did not assess traditional crime that way: “Just imagine that as a philosophy for dealing with crime, applied in other areas. ‘Oh, we did warn you that there’s a range of break-ins in your area, so sorry, we’re not interested in your burglary’.
>
> “Or, ‘Everyone knows that’s a rough pub, so if you went in there and got beaten up, then tough’. That’s the philosophical approach that they’re taking to fraud crimes, and I just don’t think it stands up to scrutiny.”
It isn’t quite the same though, is it? As the article goes on to explain, the plan is for the police to de-prioritise cases where the person ignored the guidelines. This doesn’t equate to their examples. It’s not “Well, it’s your own fault for living in an area where there are break-ins” or “it’s your own fault for going in to a bad pub”, it’s more akin to “well, if you must insist on leaving the doors unlocked when you go out and your valuables next to the window…” or “you were told repeatedly to walk away before the guy punched you”.
Police resources are limited. If some idiot is told a hundred times that they’re walking into a scam, and they then do everything in their power to circumvent all the measures which they are directly told are there to protect them from being scammed, do they really deserve as much police support as someone who’s genuinely been duped?