ArticleBliss Directory
Free Article Directory
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Actions
Print Article
BookMark Article
Author Login 
Important
Existing members will have to use the lost password facility to get new username and new password
Welcome Guest! Please login or create an account.
If you do not have an account yet, you can register ( Here ), or you may retrieve a lost user/pass ( Here ).
Navigation 
- Home
- Privacy Policy
- Terms Of Use
- Submit Guidelines
- Learn More
- Top Articles
- Ebay UK Store
- Ebay US Store
Author Highlights 
Giorgio Rossi
Roma
Keith Enzo
San Francisco
Dawn E Smith
Shimpling
Other Websites 
A Better Way To Combat Fraud?
Author : Mark Jenner
Fraud is a massive problem, not only in the UK and USA but in most of the leading countries also. The fight against fraud needs to be stepped up, but the trend is to reduce public expenditure these days. This not only impacts agencies such as the police but also the fraudsters themselves will be feeling the pinch!
The question is - will this result in an even greater increase in the number of frauds taking place? If the regional economic crime squads employ fewer police officers and agencies such as SOCA are broken up, will the fraudster have less to fear when contemplating his next target. Other agencies are reducing their spending on the fight against fraud. Take the Department for Business Innovation and Skills for example, who are substantially reducing the sums spent investigating companies - meaning that all those businesses set up to defraud large numbers of the population are set to flourish.
However, when fraudsters are brought to trial they can cost the taxpayer a fortune in Legal Aid. All their legal costs, which in a complex fraud can amount to £100,000s, even several £millions, when all the barrister, solicitor and expert witness costs are taken into account. It seems that along with the funding for the regulators, Legal aid is set to be significantly cut also.
On the face of it this seems to be fair. The authorities cannot afford to investigate or prosecute as many frauds - but if you do get caught you will not be allowed a comprehensive defence using the best legal and fraud experts available. Quid pro quo? A better opportunity but with a bigger risk.
The problem is likely to be the way in which the funding will be allocated. Whereas it will be hard for any fraudster to obtain quality representation owing to the costs involved, the authorities on the other hand will be spending their scarce resources in a way that will produce the most return. This has always been their way, where previously criticisms have been that resources are always spent on serious crime such as murder, rape and dealing drugs. Frauds were often considered too much work for only a single conviction - one police officer could typically spend a year or more investigating a relatively minor fraud, whereas the same resource could result in successful prosecutions for 100s of burglaries or one or more "serious" crimes.
The danger is that the police will investigate the easier frauds, where quick results are possible, leaving the complex frauds alone. This means that businessmen practicing only sharp practice might be targeted - or unfortunate businesses that have failed but are accused of wrongful trading. With little chance of a high quality defence it is possible that these will become victims of the cut backs and that the clever fraudsters will escape sanction.
Author's Resource Box
Mark Jenner is an expert forensic accountant and fraud specialist. His web site offers informative articles on fraud investigation fraud prevention and asset recovery together with advice on preventing money laundering. He regularly gives expert accounting evidence as a witness for the fraud regulators.
Article Source:
Articlebliss
Tags: criminal defence, fraud
Author RSS Feed
Category RSS Feed
Submitted : 2010-09-02 Word Count : 1 Popularity: 155