Should fraud be a police priority?

It’s very easy to say that police resources are inadequate for pursuing and prosecuting fraud crimes, but we don’t really know.

The number of police officers employed is not necessarily a measure of capacity. There are also civilian and expert specialists working on cases, and a single crime can have a hundred victims scattered over forty police forces. The question of the other resources deployed by the police also has a bearing on their effectiveness. Policing is no longer a matter of notebooks, pencils, whistles and truncheons, so new technology has enabled faster responses, multiple simultaneous investigations, improved forensic examination, improved intelligence gathering and analysis, and the introduction of better counter-measures. This could compensate for a reduction in numbers.

For the victims of unsolved – or un-investigated – fraud attacks, this is no consolation, especially with the findings that in some police forces there is not even any attempt to investigate with the reports just filed for statistical purposes. The deficiencies of Action Fraud are not helpful and perhaps this programme, born in an era of less sophisticated fraud, has had its day and is projecting false hopes of resolution. Citizens are entitled to expect the police to respond responsibly to frauds that lead to huge losses and misery but I accept that it is very difficult to increase capacity and competence against a surge in a silent and invisible crime that has expanded rapidly.

The question has rightly been raised whether we are expecting the wrong people to tackle the problem. Faced with rapes, drugs-related violence, stabbings, and terrorism, who would switch resources to fraud? It seems that the police never drop a murder case or stop looking for missing persons [even in Portugal]; is that the right policy? How many constables and senior personnel does it take away from crime prevention and detection in order to keep the peace outside Parliament during these febrile times? As a society, have we worked out what we really want the most? Or do we want it all, and if so is that reasonable or realistic?

I am not trying to defend the police from criticism but trying to put some context around a rather facile question posed by this Conversation: “Do you think fraud should be a higher priority for the police?. That is what is termed a closed question along the lines of “Would you like a sweetie, baby?” and doesn’t actually get us very far irrespective of how many people say YES.

I have to assume that, in the light of the almost universal affirmative response to this Conversation, Which? is going to do something useful with the information and comments received, but there has been no indication yet what that action might be. Another campaign perhaps? A complaint to the Home Secretary and all the Police & Crime Commissioners? Or is it just a vent?

When the country was gravely threatened during the Second World War and had to crack the enemy’s command and deployment capability the government turned to the universities to help. RADAR was one outcome and codebreaking was another; the best brains were brought together to invent and develop systems and technologies that could cope with the massive numbers of simultaneous threats and provide advance intelligence. A similar response might be appropriate now. I hope some of our better universities are offering to help at this time of national emergency.

I agree with Ian when he says that professional education and public information programmes could reduce the likelihood and effectiveness of fraud crimes, but every citizen with money at risk can also take personal action immediately by looking at how and where they keep their money and how they access it, how they answer the telephone and deal with e-mails, what they say and do on the internet and what information they give away.

I am convinced that on-line banking is the primary route for a lot of fraud because once a criminal has gained access to your computer or smart phone they can soon see how you are managing your money and where it is located, so they can wipe out your savings as well as empty your current account. The sooner the new authentication procedures are introduced for on-line shopping and money transfers the better, and it is a great shame that progress is so slow.

Having all your money in the hands of the same bank or building society [and one password] is probably not a great idea, nor putting all your savings in just one account because the interest rate is a fraction higher. Giving credit card numbers over the phone without key encryption is stupid when you think about it but many companies still take orders that way. And people write their credit card numbers on mail order forms, give them to the low-paid staff in the travel agents and mobile phone shops, and hand them over to other service providers. It only takes one dishonest employee to garner enough data to reap a ripe harvest.

The banks are not as good as gold. I watched a TV programme recently about how the City of London police are trying to deal with fraud crimes. It revealed that one bank had employed someone who had been dismissed from a previous employment for dishonesty, was not suitably screened or supervised, and within a short time was given unrestricted access to databases of customers’ accounts which he started plundering. He and his accomplices could even target the most fruitful deposits without wasting time on the bare cupboards of Mother Hubbard. He was eventually identified, convicted and jailed, but did the banks repay their customers? That wasn’t disclosed and most victims were probably unaware of the outcome. Gross criminality and malversation by the employee but gross negligence by the bank.

This vote includes holding to account the giants (such as a famous Search engine owner) through whose “Shopping facility” I purchased expensive items only to realise they were made of fake material. I did leave a clear negative, strong review with that Search engine owner but obviously they never got back to me (Too big to deal with an ordinary person like me but of course they make good money out of many ordinary people like me). I am glad European Regulators fine them for irregularities – I hope you’ll look into this “Fraud” of the Search engine owner too.