The Invisible Crimes: How Police Failures in Handling Fraud and Theft are Undermining Justice

The core point: “civil dispute” should not become a shortcut

Fraud and theft complaints can be difficult for police forces because they often involve documents, contracts, commercial relationships, property rights, disputed intentions and overlapping civil remedies. That complexity matters. But complexity should not automatically push a complaint out of the criminal route.

Where a complainant says they have evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, financial loss, dishonest gain, abuse of position or deprivation of property, the decision-maker should identify the alleged criminal elements and explain why the case does or does not justify further investigation, referral or charge.

The public-confidence issue is practical. A victim does not need every case to result in prosecution. They do need a decision that shows the complaint was classified correctly, the evidence was understood, and the route to review was clearly explained.

Fraud context: volume, resources and public confidence

The Government’s Fraud Strategy recognises fraud as a major public and economic harm, and sets out measures intended to improve prevention, reporting, investigation and prosecution. It also identifies fraud as a threat to public confidence in the rule of law and national economic security.

Report Fraud, run by the City of London Police, is the reporting route for fraud and cyber crime in England and Wales. Its public guidance explains that reports are assessed by Report Fraud Analysis Services and that the service itself does not investigate cases or advise on progress.

The CPS threshold: why credible evidence may still not lead to charge

The CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors sets out the Full Code Test. Prosecutors must consider the evidential stage first and then the public-interest stage. A case that does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

This is often difficult for victims. A complainant may have credible documents, a coherent account and a real loss, yet still be told the case will not proceed because the legal test is not met, because further evidence is needed, because the evidence may be unreliable or inadmissible, or because the police have not been able to complete reasonable lines of inquiry.

The Code also makes clear that a CPS assessment is not a finding of guilt, and that a decision not to charge does not necessarily mean the person has not been a victim of crime. That distinction matters. NFA is a procedural outcome, not moral vindication of the suspect.

Civil or criminal? The classification problem

Many fraud complaints arise from relationships that also have a civil-law dimension: landlord and tenant, solicitor and client, company and director, buyer and seller, employer and employee, lender and borrower, or commercial partners. That overlap should not end the analysis.

A matter may have a civil remedy and still raise criminal questions. The issue is whether the evidence supports the elements of a criminal offence, whether there are reasonable lines of inquiry, and whether the case can be proved to the criminal standard. Equally, not every unfair, aggressive or loss-causing civil dispute is fraud or theft.

Case study: alleged lockout, arrears and misclassification

The supplied draft refers to the author’s experience as a business owner who says a legal firm misrepresented rent arrears, contributed to a lockout, and caused significant financial loss. It also says the police treated the matter as a civil or housing-related dispute rather than investigating possible offences under the Fraud Act 2006 or Theft Act 1968.

For publication, those points should be framed as allegations and route questions. The issue is not to declare that fraud or theft has been proved. The issue is to ask whether the evidence was assessed against the correct legal framework, whether the alleged misrepresentation was identified, whether intention and dishonesty were considered, and whether the complainant was told why the matter was classified as civil.

The evidence test: turning grievance into a reviewable complaint

A strong fraud or theft complaint should not rely on rhetoric. It should map the alleged conduct to the legal issue. That makes it easier for police, prosecutors, reviewers or advisers to see whether the concern is evidential, jurisdictional, legal, procedural or resource-based.

The practical question is not “was this unfair?” but “what offence is alleged, what facts support each element, what further inquiry is reasonable, and what explanation was given for refusing to investigate or charge?”

Review routes after NFA

A no-further-action decision can arise at different points. It may be a police decision not to investigate or continue investigating. It may be a CPS decision not to charge. It may reflect insufficient evidence, proportionality, public interest, missing inquiries, or a view that the matter belongs elsewhere.

The review route depends on who made the decision. The CPS Victims’ Right to Review scheme applies to certain CPS decisions not to start or continue a prosecution. It is not a general appeal route for every police decision not to investigate. Police decisions may require a force-level complaint, victim right to review route where available, or separate legal advice depending on the facts.

A reform model: better classification, better reasons, better victim confidence

The reform point does not depend on proving every allegation in one case study. It rests on a wider concern: victims of fraud and theft need an intelligible pathway through reporting, investigation, CPS decision-making and review.