Written by In recent years, there has been growing concern over the handling of fraud and theft cases by the police in the UK. High-profile statements from legal experts and personal accounts have highlighted significant issues in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. Despite the presence of credible evidence, many cases do not meet the threshold set by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), resulting in no further action (NFA). This report examines the systemic failures in addressing criminal behaviour, focusing on fraud and theft, while considering the broader implications for law enforcement and victim protection.
The Decline in Prosecuting Fraud
Expert Insights from the Judiciary
Deputy High Court Judge Clare Montgomery has publicly criticised the declining interest in prosecuting fraud within the UK. According to Montgomery, 99 per cent of crimes committed by “professional fraudsters” are not being investigated, let alone prosecuted. This alarming statistic underscores a broader trend of diminishing resources and focus on fraud-related crimes. In a discussion on the law and politics podcast Double Jeopardy, Montgomery elaborated on this decline, noting that fraud cases have become less exciting and thus receive minimal attention from police forces.
Montgomery highlighted that the localism introduced by crime commissioners, who direct activities of local forces, has relegated fraud to the bottom of priorities. This has resulted in a lack of interest in prosecuting fraud at a meaningful level, leading to a situation where professional fraudsters operate with near impunity.
Case Studies: The Real-World Impact
One notable case involves my own experience as a business owner who fell victim to a legal firm’s fraudulent actions. The firm misrepresented rent arrears, leading to an unlawful lockout and significant financial loss for my business. Despite clear evidence of misrepresentation and fraudulent instructions, the police classified the case under the Housing Act 1988, treating it as a civil dispute rather than a criminal matter. This misclassification prevented the application of the Theft Act 1968 and the Fraud Act 2006, which are designed to address such criminal behaviour.
I detailed this incident in my article titled, “Exposed: How Misclassification of Criminal Acts as Civil Disputes is Shielding Fraudsters from Justice!“, emphasising the police’s failure to recognise and act upon the criminal elements present. I argued that the deliberate misrepresentation and deceptive practices by the legal firm constitute fraud and theft, warranting criminal investigation rather than civil proceedings.
The Role of the CPS and Police in Handling Criminal Evidence
Threshold for Prosecution
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plays a critical role in determining whether a case proceeds to prosecution. However, the threshold for prosecution is high, often resulting in many crimes not being prosecuted and the police classifying them as “no further action” (NFA). This issue is prevalent across various types of crime, not just fraud and theft. The high threshold means that even when victims provide credible evidence, their cases may not meet the stringent requirements set by the CPS for prosecution.
The Legal Framework: Limitations and Recommendations
Housing Act 1988 vs. Criminal Law
The Housing Act 1988 primarily addresses civil disputes between landlords and tenants, focusing on rent arrears and eviction procedures. However, it does not cover criminal behaviour such as fraud and theft. In my case, the police’s decision to classify the incident under the Housing Act was inappropriate, as the actions of the legal firm clearly involved criminal intent and deception.
The Theft Act 1968 and the Fraud Act 2006 are designed to address criminal actions, including theft by deception and fraudulent activities. These laws should have been applied to investigate and prosecute the fraudulent behaviour in my case. The misclassification of such incidents under civil law frameworks prevents the appropriate application of criminal statutes, thereby shielding fraudsters from justice.
Recommendations for Law Enforcement
- Reclassification of Cases: There needs to be a more rigorous approach to classifying cases that involve criminal behaviour. Police should be trained to identify and distinguish between civil disputes and criminal actions, ensuring that cases involving fraud and theft are investigated under the appropriate legal frameworks.
- Resource Allocation: Increased resources should be allocated to fraud investigation units. The declining interest in prosecuting fraud can be attributed to limited resources and a lack of specialised training for officers in handling complex fraud cases.
- Collaboration with CPS: Closer collaboration between police forces and the CPS is essential to ensure that cases with credible evidence are thoroughly reviewed and prosecuted. The CPS should consider revising its threshold for prosecution to accommodate the realities of fraud cases, where evidence may be substantial but not meet the current stringent requirements.
- Public Awareness and Support: Raising public awareness about the limitations of the current legal framework and encouraging victims to report fraud and theft can help build a case for legal reforms. Support systems for victims should be strengthened to provide legal assistance and counselling.
Conclusion
The failures in prosecuting fraud and theft highlight significant shortcomings within the UK’s justice system. The misclassification of criminal acts as civil disputes, coupled with the high threshold for prosecution set by the CPS, allows perpetrators to evade justice.
To address these failures, a multifaceted approach is required. Law enforcement agencies must re-evaluate their classification processes, allocate sufficient resources to fraud investigations, and collaborate more effectively with the CPS. By making these changes, the justice system can better protect victims and ensure that perpetrators of criminal behaviour are held accountable.
#FraudPrevention #JusticeSystem #LawEnforcement #CPS #LegalReform #VictimsRights #UKLaw #CrimeInvestigation
Public Interest Disclosure Statement
This statement outlines the principles guiding disclosures made in my articles, which aim to serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability.
Guiding Principles
- Public Interest: Disclosures are made to serve the public interest, inspired by the principles underlying the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
- Ethical Reporting: I strive to adhere to ethical reporting practices to the best of my ability as a non-professional writer.
- Factual Accuracy: All information disclosed is factual and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge.
- Good Faith: Disclosures are made without malice and with a genuine belief in their truth and public importance.
- Proportionality: The extent of disclosure is proportionate to the perceived wrongdoing or risk.
- Confidentiality: Sources and sensitive information are protected where appropriate.
Legal Considerations Disclosures are made with consideration of:
- Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR: Personal data is processed in compliance with data protection principles.
- Defamation Act 2013: Truth: Factual statements are true to the best of my knowledge. Honest Opinion: Opinions are clearly identified and based on facts. Public Interest: Publication is believed to be in the public interest.
- Human Rights Act 1998: Disclosures exercise the right to freedom of expression, balanced against other rights.
Ethical Standards
While not a professional journalist, I strive to maintain high ethical standards in my reporting, including:
- Verifying information to the best of my ability
- Seeking comment from those involved where possible
- Being transparent about my methods and limitations
Disclaimer
This statement does not claim legal protections specific to employee whistleblowers or professional journalists. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance, this is not legal advice. I am not a legal professional or a qualified journalist. Legal and ethical advice will be sought in cases of uncertainty.
By adhering to these principles, I aim to make responsible disclosures that serve the public interest while respecting legal and ethical obligations.