Fraud Advisory Services

Banks have always been the target of criminals for their very nature is to hold large amounts of money. However, in the 21st century we are not as concerned about bank robbers or bullion heists as about the risk of fraud. Just about every fraud or money laundering activity will need interaction with a bank somewhere along the line. Cash is very difficult to spend in any large quantities but checks and debit/credit cards afford the lavish lifestyles the criminals seek.

Within the bank there is the problem of embezzlement by the staff. Key members of staff are in a position to know the inner workings of the accounting controls put in place to prevent fraud by corrupt members of staff. Corruption could occur by a third party enlisting a member of staff to obtain information of customers accounts. Identity theft and identity fraud are key areas where losses can occur. But id theft and embezzlement is not the prime area of concern in the area of bank fraud.

The need for interaction by the criminals with banks to facilitate their spending of their proceeds of crime gives rise to the issue of anti money laundering controls that every bank must have in place. The bank is effectively tasked with acting as a whistle blower for law enforcement, reporting any suspicious customers or transactions that take place.

Criminals, fraudsters and even terrorists are finding it ever harder to use banks to move their money around the globe. Anti Money Laundering Regulations place restrictions on the ease with which money once was moved. The criminals often turn to fringe banks away from the high street to transact their proceeds of crime in an attempt to escape the gaze of the authorities. Corruption in second tier banks is well reported in the press. For example the Bank of Curacao was closed down at one stage as most of its customers were found to be involved in VAT fraud activities. Companies based in Europe would trade with each other, but the financial transactions were conducted remotely in Curacao. Legitimate looking accounting entries were recorded in the UK, France or Germany or wherever the business was physically taking place.

Other fringe banking systems prone to the attention of the fraudster or money launderer are the money transfer systems that operate world wide. The Hawala banking system is notorious for not leaving any audit trail – transactions between countries at opposite ends of the world conducted by worth of mouth. The word ‘Hawala’ means ‘trust’.

Hawala banking is traditionally used for ex patriot Asians to send money back to their families in Pakistan and India. It uses the transfer of ‘value’ or exchange of debt as one means for moving wealth. Other more formal systems such as Western Union will transfer small sums of cash in the same way, for a price. Both Hawala Banking and some of the transfer businesses such as Western Union have been associated with fraud and money laundering in recent years.

However, a number of more respectable money exchange systems are operating legitimately and taking more and more trade from the large high street banks. PayPal and the Revolution Money Exchange have been carving a growing slice of financial activity in recent years. The allegations of a Revolution Money Exchange Scam reported in 2008 was unfounded and this major USA bank backed organization is probably less prone to bank fraud and corruption than most leading high street banks. Indeed it was probably because the Revolution Money Exchange was paying $25 to new clients opening an account and $10 for each referral brought in that cries of fraud and scam were made. Yet people do not realize that a leading bank such as Lloyds or Barclays might pay $100s and even $1000s to secure a new customer!

(This newsletter is circulated in hard copy format around solicitors and baristers throughout the UK)

Welcome to the second edition of “Fraud Briefing” this year.  Following positive feedback gratefully received from many of you, I am now planning to publish this newsletter every two or three months. Given the vagrancies of the postal system and a recent flurry of new cases I have decided to send this one out in good time and apologise if this festive edition reaches you before the season begins.

New cases picked up recently include old favourites of criminal defence frauds, money laundering indictments and Proceeds of Crime confiscations, but I was glad to get the opportunity to work on another Ponzi based scam. This time my interesting task is to look at the professional involvement of an accountant providing services to the investment fraudsters. I also seem to be receiving a few enquiries with an international flavour, possibly because I have put in more commitment to my Internet marketing through technical article writing?

Insolvency cases – when will the floodgates open?

One recent approach from an individual residing in the Far East has now turned into an investigation into a “pre-pack” administration in the UK. Pre-packs have been the subject of much criticism, being a process with little regulation and making it far too easy to establish a “phoenix” company when businesses fall on hard times. I understand that such has been the public complaint that the Insolvency Service carried out a review of the 572 pre-packs that took place in the first six months of 2009. It is astonishing to learn that 35% of these did not comply with government legislation and that 17 were deemed serious enough to be referred for full investigation.

My source in the Insolvency Service tells me that  the typical problems being seen are when a company diverts its trade and debtors elsewhere in order to demonstrate insolvency. Then the administrator is astonished to find that the company that he sold the business assets to is suddenly being managed by the same directors as before.

It is still asset stripping…the diversion of trade prior to a pre-pack seems to continue the theme that I discussed in my previous newsletter. Is there no end to the methods devised by the fraudsters for obtaining value from a business and then leaving the creditors to pick up the pieces?

The future of criminal defence under threat?

I don’t want to be alarmist or jump the gun, but the intention of the Legal Services Commission to reduce expert fees in criminal defence cases by 20% has given me a number of sleepless nights over the past two months.  I have always prided myself on managing a broad portfolio of fraud related assignments, from investigating fraud, asset recovery and assisting the regulators to providing expert accounting witness services to the defence team in criminal fraud and proceeds of crime cases.

In most areas of my work each new assignment brings different issues and varied circumstances in which fraud has occurred.  However in criminal defence work a pattern really does emerge and “practice” definitely does make perfect.  Having worked as an expert in criminal defence matters for many years now I like to think that my approach has become efficient and most certainly cost effective as far as LSC funding is concerned.  It does seem rather a shame that they are now threatening to make good on their proposals originally aired in a consultation five years ago and currently being discussed again – that defence experts are paid at rates commensurate with  prosecution costs or more aptly…public sector pay scales.  This is a ridiculous hypothesis and a couple of objections (I know there are many more) spring to mind:

• The Government fraud regulators, prosecutors and the LSC have all seen fit to waste astonishing sums of money on pursuing certain headline causes when the political will has been there and then complain that they do not have enough to manage their day to day business – think of the £15 million Rover investigation, £60 million for the London Underground fiasco…; and
• The rates they are proposing are more likely to be in line with public sector remuneration levels, yet we do not have a guaranteed pension, secure job and flexible hours that might make the low rates more bearable.

I am sure we will all muddle through.  It may be that the poorer criminals will not have the access to justice that they have enjoyed in the past.  It may be that sophisticated fraudsters will be able to fund their high quality defence and the less successful criminals take what they are given. 

What will the New Year hold?

We wait to see what will happen with expert funding as we do with all the other areas of public sector funding cuts.  In the meantime it has to be business as usual.  I believe that I am in a position to continue to give personal and efficient attention to criminal defence cases, small and large, with an experienced team of criminal defence forensic accountants behind me.  I will also be looking to that area of expertise that gives me much satisfaction – recovering assets in insolvencies.  This I feel will become  hot topic soon as I do get the feeling that there is a huge volume of businesses teetering on the brink – despite the ever hopeful claims of being out of the depression/recession. 

Corporate asset stripping will continue to keep me occupied it seems, and as the world shrinks and the Internet grows I am alert to the possibility that more and more of my work will involve telephone calls in the middle of the night from different time zones.  Fortunately there is less likelihood of foreign travel now given the ease with which we can communicate – but I am having to brush up on my “KYC” due diligence procedures!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Mark Jenner

In the UK, the interpretation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 when using asset confiscation as a weapon in the criminal regulators’ arsenal of sanctions will continue to develop and solidify over time.  However, in recent years it seems that the courts, lawyers and regulators alike struggle to understand the spirit of the law.  On one hand the prosecutors seem to be applying the “lifestyle” assumptions with complete abandon whereas the court, while certainly not ignoring the law, on occasions comes up with common sense judgements when enforcing what many commentators have labelled as “Draconian” legislation.

What is criminal benefit and how much might be realised during confiscation is commonly disputed and was a notable issue in the recent R – v – May appeal during 2008.  The judge had originally reduced an individual’s benefit by the amount of monies recovered elsewhere in a fraudulent matter.  It was subsequently ruled that he had erred in doing this as he had been confusing realisable assets with benefit.

What is clear after this decision is that the benefit obtained from money laundering for the purpose of the Proceeds of Crime framework is not the profit (or commission earned) of carrying out the crime but the sum of the criminal property dealt with.  This means that if you facilitate the laundering of a million pounds for a friend for a £10,000 fee, your benefit will be assessed at the level of one million pounds.

The quantum of recovery can therefore be much more than the incentive earned by doing the crime!  This can also be the case if a person is deemed to have a criminal lifestyle.  Then it is not just the value of the particular criminal conduct that has taken place that becomes the benefit, but everything owned currently together with the value of all assets owned and monies transacted during the previous six years.  So in theory if you fail to pay a few parking tickets you stand to lose your house, car and life savings.

It is up to a defendant to prove that all monies passing through his bank account do not represent the proceeds of criminal activity.  This means that all income must be verified.  This is easy for an average employee whose main income will be a salary through the PAYE system with perhaps an occasional injection of funds from an identifiable source such as parental gift or lottery win.  It is not so easy for the person who has lived as a wheeler and dealer, often paying little or no tax and certainly keeping only minimal accounting records.  Explaining receipts into a bank account can be difficult and the Prosecution will always assume these to be benefit.  Furthermore, when assessing realisable assets all payments out of a bank account will be deemed to be dispersal of criminal proceeds as “hidden assets”.  Identifying these, which are often simply innocent household outgoings, can be difficult without a proper document paper trail.