1-20 of 45 results for subject:Fraud
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.281 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Fraud
- We searched for
- subject_t:Fraud OR subject_t:Embezzlement OR subject_ses:91352
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.
With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab):
According to the Government’s own research, 60% of people in the north-east have no up-to-date photo ID and 44% say they are unlikely to apply for local authority ID in order to vote. Will the Justice Secretary update the House on the most recent data on investigation and prosecutions for in-person voter fraud, because without evidence of significant abuse, the Government’s sledgehammer to crack a nut risks undermining rather than protecting the integrity of our elections by unjustifiably preventing many people from voting?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise an issue that affects many people. One issue is the embarrassment and shame of people who fall victim to such fraud that they could have been tricked in the first place. Not only is supporting victims to overcome that stigma very much part of the victims code that we introduced in the past month or so, working with the sector, but as we develop the consultation into our new law, there will be opportunities fully to reflect the pernicious nature of online criminality. By helping to design out fraud, the financial services sector can make its greatest contribution to the reduction of such heinous crime.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise an issue that affects many people. One issue is the embarrassment and shame of people who fall victim to such fraud that they could have been tricked in the first place. Not only is supporting victims to overcome that stigma very much part of the victims code that we introduced in the past month or so, working with the sector, but as we develop the consultation into our new law, there will be opportunities fully to reflect the pernicious nature of online criminality. By helping to design out fraud, the financial services sector can make its greatest contribution to the reduction of such heinous crime.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), the Treasury Committee has been hearing about the explosion in online financial fraud. Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain how the victims Bill will help so many of our constituents who are being preyed upon by these financial fraudsters?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, and he is right to raise this sensitive issue for those who have been unjustly deprived as a result of a fraud. The fund, which is operated by the SRA, is for those who have suffered financial loss specifically caused by solicitors. It consulted earlier this year between January and April. It would need to seek the approval of the LSB for any changes to the fund. We need to be realistic about the fact that any compensation fund will not be able to fully recompense those who have lost under it, but I take his point about time limits, and it is something that I will discuss with him further.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, and he is right to raise this sensitive issue for those who have been unjustly deprived as a result of a fraud. The fund, which is operated by the SRA, is for those who have suffered financial loss specifically caused by solicitors. It consulted earlier this year between January and April. It would need to seek the approval of the LSB for any changes to the fund. We need to be realistic about the fact that any compensation fund will not be able to fully recompense those who have lost under it, but I take his point about time limits, and it is something that I will discuss with him further.
The land banking scandal of nearly a decade ago is as real today as it was then to some people, especially in cases where solicitors have been prosecuted and struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The SRA deems compensation claims out of time after a year, even when the timescale from prosecution to striking off can be over a year. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Legal Services Board to investigate whether the discretionary compensation fund administered by the SRA is actually fit for purpose?
To ask the Attorney General, how many proven fraudulent personal injury claims were made by (a) horse-riders, (b) pedestrians, (c) cyclists and (d) other vulnerable road users in the last 12 months.
To ask the Attorney General, how many proven fraudulent personal injury claims were made by (a) horse-riders, (b) pedestrians, (c) cyclists and (d) other vulnerable road users in the last 12 months.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of prosecutions for personal injury insurance frauds. Nor is any record held to show if defendants were purporting to have sustained an injury on a road when making a fraudulent claim. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
To ask the Attorney General, how many successful prosecutions there have been for personal injury insurance fraud in the UK court system in the last 12 months.
To ask the Attorney General, how many successful prosecutions there have been for personal injury insurance fraud in the UK court system in the last 12 months.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of prosecutions for personal injury insurance frauds. Nor is any record held to show if defendants were purporting to have sustained an injury on a road when making a fraudulent claim. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
To ask the Attorney General, how many fraud prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought in Crown Courts in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and what the outcomes of those prosecutions were.
To ask the Attorney General, how many fraud prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought in Crown Courts in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and what the outcomes of those prosecutions were.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the numbers of defendants and the outcome of prosecution proceedings, divided into twelve Principal Offence Categories, including ‘Fraud and Forgery’. The numbers of defendants prosecuted in Crown Courts under this category for each CPS Area and Casework Divisions are provided in the accompanying attachment along with the outcomes of those prosecutions.
The Crown Prosecution Service anticipated increases in complex cases such as fraud ahead of the last spending review, and there was indeed a 14% increase in fraud and forgery cases last year, but, importantly, the conviction rate stayed stable at 86%.
The Crown Prosecution Service anticipated increases in complex cases such as fraud ahead of the last spending review, and there was indeed a 14% increase in fraud and forgery cases last year, but, importantly, the conviction rate stayed stable at 86%.
What steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources to tackle serious fraud and other economic crimes.
I assure the hon. Lady that the allocation of resources for the prosecution of fraud has increased within the CPS. There are now over 200 specialist fraud prosecutors, not just here in London but across the country in important regional centres, and that number is set to increase to 250 in the months ahead, so the CPS is really placing an important priority on this.
I assure the hon. Lady that the allocation of resources for the prosecution of fraud has increased within the CPS. There are now over 200 specialist fraud prosecutors, not just here in London but across the country in important regional centres, and that number is set to increase to 250 in the months ahead, so the CPS is really placing an important priority on this.
With a third of the workforce cut since 2010—400 prosecutors and 1,000 administrators and caseworkers—does the Solicitor General really consider that the CPS is able to deal with these complex fraud and economic cases, and will not any further cuts leave it in a really bad state to prosecute?
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He is right to highlight the recent successes of the SFO in collecting millions of pounds for the taxpayer as a result of deferred prosecution agreements. I think the Roskill model, which brings together investigators and prosecutors in one unit, works very well.
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He is right to highlight the recent successes of the SFO in collecting millions of pounds for the taxpayer as a result of deferred prosecution agreements. I think the Roskill model, which brings together investigators and prosecutors in one unit, works very well.
Does the Solicitor General agree that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in this area is very much complemented in cases of really serious economic fraud by the work of the Serious Fraud Office, which has been transformed under the leadership of David Green, resulting in the recovery of over £500 million of ill-gotten gains? Does he agree that the model of the Serious Fraud Office does this country great credit and will be of increasing value to us in future?
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are at all times under a duty to review the mechanism by which we tackle economic crime, because it is a question not just of criminality but of national security. The Government are therefore right to examine the situation. As I said, I think the Roskill model works extremely well.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are at all times under a duty to review the mechanism by which we tackle economic crime, because it is a question not just of criminality but of national security. The Government are therefore right to examine the situation. As I said, I think the Roskill model works extremely well.
Picking up on the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, does not the existence of the Serious Fraud Office reduce pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of prosecuting big-ticket economic crime? Will the Solicitor General therefore guarantee that the Serious Fraud Office will continue to exist as it is and will not be merged with the Crown Prosecution Service or the National Crime Agency?
I am happy to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues about all these issues. I praise David Green for the work he has done in leading the SFO. I will continue to make the case for the Roskill model.
I am happy to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues about all these issues. I praise David Green for the work he has done in leading the SFO. I will continue to make the case for the Roskill model.
I did not detect a guarantee in that answer. A month ago, the Solicitor General praised the work of the director of the Serious Fraud Office and how he had enhanced the role of the Serious Fraud Office in our national life. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fine persuasive skills, so if he will not give a guarantee, will he at least undertake to go to see the Prime Minister to speak about the advantages of the Serious Fraud Office and having investigatory and prosecuting services under one roof?
My hon. Friend knows that the SFO operates a model of funding that means it can be quite flexible as regards particular investigations. The important point is that we get the right people with the right specific expertise in particular types of serious fraud. Flexibility is the most important principle.
My hon. Friend knows that the SFO operates a model of funding that means it can be quite flexible as regards particular investigations. The important point is that we get the right people with the right specific expertise in particular types of serious fraud. Flexibility is the most important principle.
I suspect that those who have the necessary financial expertise to investigate, uncover, prosecute and prove complex financial fraud will probably get paid a lot more in the private sector working for business or the City. What can the Solicitor General do to ensure that the right people with the right skills are retained by the CPS and the SFO?
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this. He will be glad to know that the provisions in the Criminal Finances Bill, which I hope will become law very soon, will enhance the powers of prosecutors and investigators in going after ill-gotten gains with new measures such as unexplained wealth orders, which will help us to deal with the perpetrators of this type of fraud.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this. He will be glad to know that the provisions in the Criminal Finances Bill, which I hope will become law very soon, will enhance the powers of prosecutors and investigators in going after ill-gotten gains with new measures such as unexplained wealth orders, which will help us to deal with the perpetrators of this type of fraud.
Everybody knows that there is a lot of hot money in the London high-end residential market, especially coming from Russia, and there are extensive reporting regulations on financial advisers and agents, so why have there been so few prosecutions for money laundering in this area?
What steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources to tackle serious fraud and other economic crimes.
What steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources to tackle serious fraud and other economic crimes.
The Crown Prosecution Service anticipated increases in complex cases such as fraud ahead of the last spending review, and there was indeed a 14% increase in fraud and forgery cases last year, but, importantly, the conviction rate stayed stable at 86%.
Motion that this House has considered funding of the Serious Fraud Office. Motion lapsed.
Motion that this House has considered funding of the Serious Fraud Office. Motion lapsed.
To ask the Attorney General, what recent steps the Serious Fraud Office has taken to prevent serious fraud and other economic crimes.
To ask the Attorney General, what recent steps the Serious Fraud Office has taken to prevent serious fraud and other economic crimes.
Over the past two years the Serious Fraud Office has secured:
- the first contested convictions for rate rigging,
- its first contested conviction of a corporate for offences involving bribery of foreign officials,
- the first two Deferred Prosecution Agreements in the UK, and
- the first conviction of a corporate for an offence under s7 of the Bribery Act.
To ask the Attorney General, what steps the Serious Fraud Office is taking to address fraud by employees in large companies.
To ask the Attorney General, what steps the Serious Fraud Office is taking to address fraud by employees in large companies.
The role of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is to investigate and prosecute serious or complex frauds.
The SFO is committed to investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting such serious frauds, as seen in the conviction of Tom Hayes for offences related to manipulating LIBOR.
The Government is consulting and will introduce a new criminal offence to apply to corporations who failed to prevent their agents from criminal facilitating tax evasion.
The Government will also consult on extending the criminal offence of “failure to prevent” from bribery to other economic crimes such as fraud and money laundering so that firms are properly held to account for criminal activity that takes place within them.
To ask the Attorney General, how many fraud prosecutions were carried out in each CPS business area in England and Wales in each year since 2005.
To ask the Attorney General, how many fraud prosecutions were carried out in each CPS business area in England and Wales in each year since 2005.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the numbers of defendants and the outcome of prosecution proceedings, divided into twelve Principal Offence Categories, including ‘Fraud and Forgery’. The numbers of defendants prosecuted under this category are provided in the accompanying attachment.
To ask the Attorney General, what the deadline is for criminal prosecutions to be brought by the Metropolitan Police against people implicated in electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets as a result of the Election Court rulings against former mayor Lutfur Rahman.
To ask the Attorney General, what the deadline is for criminal prosecutions to be brought by the Metropolitan Police against people implicated in electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets as a result of the Election Court rulings against former mayor Lutfur Rahman.
The time limit for bringing proceedings for a criminal offence depends on the court in which the case can be heard. Proceedings for those offences which can only be tried in the magistrates court must usually be brought within 6 months of the alleged offence being committed. There is not usually a time limit for those offences which can only be prosecuted in the Crown Court or which can be prosecuted in either the magistrates or Crown Court. There are exceptions in relation to individual offences.
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 20 January 2016 to Question 22432, how the Director of the Serious Fraud Office measures the undermining of UK PLC commercial or financial interests in the (a) City of London and (b) UK.
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Answer of 20 January 2016 to Question 22432, how the Director of the Serious Fraud Office measures the undermining of UK PLC commercial or financial interests in the (a) City of London and (b) UK.
The Criminal Justice Act 1987 provides that “The Director may investigate any suspected offence which appears to him on reasonable grounds to involve serious or complex fraud.”
Each case is assessed on its own facts and merits.
The Statement of Principle sets out some of the factors that the Director will take into account when considering the matter for investigation. All of these will be considered, and there is no minimum requirement or measure in respect of the different factors.
Each on its own or taken in combination can establish sufficient grounds for the Director to decide that the case is sufficiently large, complex or of wide public interest that it should be dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office.