I read with some concern an article in this Sunday’s papers about the plans of City of London Police Economic Crime Unit for the coming year. Detective Chief Superintendent Stephen Head is on record saying ‘…as with the drugs trade, there is little point picking up a lot of small fry while the big operators get off free…I want to concentrate on maybe five very big fraudsters in place of 20 smaller ones…’

I agree that the big fraudsters should be targetted a lot more than they are. The whole concept of fraud is that it is a hidden crime and many organised criminals are currently getting away with various fraud scams big time. Yes, a lot of them get caught eventually, most having run for between three and five years. An awful lot of damage is being done to our economy in that time, which can ill afford it in the current climate. There are many fraudsters that do not get caught – or worse still, the authorities are unable to act fully or effectively, such is the complexity of the scam being perpetrated.

But there is a huge raft of smaller frauds taking place. Fraud is endemic in our society of high taxes and consumer excesses. If you thought that the ‘under table’ economy was restricted to third world countries or other less advanced administrations, you were wrong. Our society is as corrupt as any other, just that we are more circumspect.

Systematic tax evasion occurs, where workers are encouraged to claim benefits and not pay tax by their employers so that the wages bill can be less. These are the sort of companies that trade for a year or two, closing down and then starting up under a new name and very likely leaving a few unpaid bills behind them. These are the businesses that steer clear of any professional help, from lawyers and accountants who have a legal obligations to shop them to the authorities that overides any professional duty of confidentiality. In this way the Anti Money Laundering Regulations are missing a large proportion of the illegitimate cash that is being circulated and tax that is being avoided.

Add to this the wide ranging stress and hardship that is caused by the smaller frauds that come to light. Old people are duped out of their savings by an unscrupulous carer, small businesses go to the wall when the bookkeeper embezzles the funds needed for next month’s wage bill and individuals risk their dwindling pension funds in an attempt to provide for their families future. The fraudster does not care about the hardship he or she is causing, and for every ‘big fraudster’ systematically skimming millions, there are a thousand con men and scam merchants earning much less but nevertheless causing immense harm to innocent people.

If the City of London is upping the size of the frauds it targets, I hope this is not the pattern around the country. Already the small fraud is too easy to commit, and the chances of the local police investigating are remote. Not only do they not have the resources to investigate, they also lack the will because their performance is measured by dealing with more ‘serious’ crime like murder, rape, burgelary and social nuisance. I agree that these are areas that need continued attention, but should rank alongside fraud when bidding for funding from central government.

Instead of attempting to budget a limited sum of money, and cutting back on fraud, attempts should be made to discover how much money would be needed to establish a comprehensive fraud resource and then worry about funding it! I know that if this resource was established, the level of asset recovery of criminal proceeds of crime would escalate substantially and not only provide self sustaining funding for economic crime units, but also contribute to compensating the victims of fraud for their losses! I just hope that there will continue to be funding for at least some work for forensic accountants - forensic accounting is the only efficient way to unpick the financial records behind some of the more complex frauds that are detected.

The term Long Firm Fraud is popular with law enforcement investigators who coined the phrase several years ago when this method of fraudulent trading was at its height.

Typically based in the Midlands organised crime gangs would set up apparently bone fide companies, sometimes hijacking the identity of an existing company to obtain a legitimate trading history and therefore good credit reference – then commence trading with suppliers. 

They would build up trust with the suppliers by initially paying for deliveries but gradually ordering more and more and paying later and later.  Very often a large amount of stock builds up with very little initial trading occurring.

Eventualy the fraudsters would abandon the company.  The stock, well this was sold off cheaply at pound shops, market stalls and the like to quickly liquidate the capital.  The creditors of the abandoned company would of course be left high and dry.

This is a fraud fraught with difficulties for the investigator.  Typically run by Asian gangs based in Birmingham and nearby, the purpetrators opperated with aliases and phoenix companies.  Often tracing the activities that would spring up and dissappear overnight it seemed.

You would think that recently as credit becomes harder to obtain that this type of fraud would not be so popular.  However Long Firm Fraud and fraudulent trading in general is likely to become even more of a problem as we head for the (hopefully) recovery years of this current massive downturn in the economy.

This is because businesses will be eager to build up their trade, offering good terms and even extended credit in an attempt to expand out of the downturn.  If one thing is certain in the field of fraud it is the fact that lessons do not seem to be learned!  Unfortunately people are too trusting, too eager to believe that a deal is going to be beneficial. 

What can be done?  It is the same answer for all frauds.  The regulation of the fraudster by the police, other agencies and private enterprise must receive adequate resources and be seen to be dealing with fraud as it arises.  Too often we read of the likes of the Serious Fraud Office bringing a case to trial after years of investigation.  This is not a criticism of the SFO per se, but the burdensome judicial system within it is forced to work.  The Serious Fraud Office has had to deal with several Long Firm Frauds in the past and has had some excellent results.  However, obtaining credit without the intention of paying, i.e. fraudulent trading, is an offence that will happen time and time again in coming years.

It is possible to divide asset recovery into a number of different camps depending on the circumstances giving rise to the need for claiming back money or goods that rightfully belong elsewhere. 

The first of these areas include criminal asset recovery or confiscation, from fraudsters and other criminals who benefit from their crime such as drug dealers or those that deal in human trafficking.  Such asset recovery is carried out through the criminal justice system but can also involve civil asset recovery using both the civil and the criminal courts depending on the circumstances.

The next area is the asset tracing and recovery from fraudsters or persons or organisations involved in sharp business practice through the civil courts.  This involves civil litigation through the civil courts.

Last but not least is the recovery of assets from insolvent individuals and organisations.  This is recovery of assets after the fact, attempting to trace assets that should be available to creditors of the insolvent entity.  A fraud investigator investigating such losses must need to be aware of both criminal and civil considerations when dealing with bankruptcies, receiverships and liquidations.  An insolvency will normally be investigated under the provisions contained within the Insolvency Act 1986 which details of numerous criminal offences.

Whatever powers and provisions used to investigate and recover assets, there can be no better outcome to asset recovery than when negotiated settlemement and recovery is achieved.  This means that costly litigation is avoided and a fraudster may well avoid the most serious sanctions if he pays the money back. 

When deciding to investigate a loss due to fraudulent activity with a view to recovering assets an understanding of the likelihood of recovery must be obtained before substantial resources are expended on protracted analysis, interviews and other research.  This is to reduce the risk of the gamble taken as to whether or not an asset recovery action will be successeful.  It is quite easy for legal fees to reach six figures and more when asset freezing injunctions, search orders, financial investigations and legal counsel are employed by lawyers progressing a case.  This is why it is always a good idea to have a fraud response plan in place within any organisation (in addition to a fraud policy) which sets out how to act if a fraud or loss is suspected.  Provisions can be made for an immediate and totally confidential appraisal by a fraud expert in order that the correct decisions can be made at the start and costly mistakes avoided.