I was honored and humbled when I received an email out of the blue yesterday requesting assistance on a fraud related matter.
I have received many requests from all sorts of sources over the years, many from individuals or organizations who have fallen victim to some type of fraud or financial crime. Still more inquiries come from individuals suffering through a divorce, struggling to determine how to identify their former spouse’s true income and assets. Often I never hear from the person who requested the information, and I never know if what I provided was even helpful. It’s a fine line between deciding to invest the time in responding to inquires versus ignoring them due to time limitations.
Yesterday’s request was unique in that the information I provided was incorporated into a response to a reader’s plea for assistance with their fraud issues – posted within Jean Chatzky’s blog post. Certainly the highlight of my month!
I thought the blog post did an excellent job providing the reader with useful direction and resources to deal with being a victim of a financial crime.
Thank you Jean for incorporating my input in your blog.
Here’s the link to Jean’s blog post:
http://www.jeanchatzky.com/homepage/ask-jean-tuesday-free-yourself-from-fraud/#more-2848
Filed under Battle on Fraud 6 Comments »
I just don’t understand when certain things occur that make no sense to me.
Today, for instance, I received a booklet of courtesy checks at my home. These courtesy checks are linked to a corporate credit card I maintain for my firm. All the information regarding the account pertains to the business: firm name, address, phone number… My monthly statements go directly to the firm address, as does all communications regarding the account – rightfully so – that’s the way I set up the corporate account.
So why then would this well-known, highly publicized card issuer send unsolicited courtesy checks to my personal residence that were prepared using my name (not the firm’s name) and my personal residence address (not the firm’s address) to be drawn against my account, when I would not be expecting such checks???
A few years back we had an experience with bank fraud. In closing a relative’s estate a savings account was opened to accumulate any funds for estate purposes. No checks were requested or issued, and no debit card was requested. Simply a bank account to accumulate any funds until the estate was distributed. So how surprised were we when we received a call from the fraud unit of the bank alerting us to potentially fraudulent activity on the account using a debit card??? Turns out the bank on it’s own accord issued a debit card on the savings account, and sent it to an old address used more than twenty years ago. The current residents of that address received a windfall when the debit card arrived out of the blue in their mail – unbeknown to us.
Seems to me that although the credit card companies complain they fall victim to fraudulent activity and suffer the losses, their own actions in some part (perhaps a large part) contribute to fraud and could have been prevented if they simply stopped sending out unsolicited information (or worse courtesy checks) to cardholders not expecting the materials.
Filed under Beyond Fraud 3 Comments »
This article appearing February 21, 2010 illustrates two key points I highlight in my writing and speaking. First – theft of cash receipts schemes continues to be the method of choice, stealing payments intended to employers and diverting them for personal use. Second – sharing information during an investigation often leads to additional discoveries and information.
This individual was accused of stealing $171,000 in payments payable to the organization, a non-profit working with disabled children no less. Then, by sharing information with the individual’s prior employer, the prior employer discovered the same individual had stolen $335,000 in payments intended to them. Further, the same individual faces yet more charges for theft in a third context here in Connecticut.
Attorneys often provide advice, rightfully so, suggesting that communications be maintained to a minimum to limit potential exposure to the victim organization. However, if sharing of information and discussions with previous and successor employers does not occur, potential actions and thefts of an individual could go undetected forever. It is common for someone to steal, go undetected or go unprosecuted, only to obtain future employment and steal again, commonly using the same schemes of the past.
Thefts of cash receipts and payments have been the most common schemes I have encountered in the last few years. I am convinced the ATMs and other automated depositing processes have contributed in large part to this, as the checks payable to the employer are easily deposited directly into the suspect’s account. Controls are critical for every organization over the cash receipts and deposit processes for these reasons.
To read the entire article:
http://www.scindependent.com/articles/2010/02/04/south_kingstown/doc4b6af4f33ab2b461410101.txt continue reading »
Filed under Beyond Fraud No Comments »
Subscribe to RSS feed
