Blog
Legal advice after baby loss
Punam Sood
Fraud is a major threat to citizens, businesses and the government. The National Fraud Authority has estimated that the total annual losses from all fraud against all types of victims is now at least £73bn. The Fraud Advisory Panel has released its main recommendations today on “obtaining redress and improving outcomes for the victims of fraud”. The full report is available here.
The Fraud Advisory Panel has been leading a civil justice initiative since the end of 2011 as part of the UK’s new national counter-fraud strategy “Fighting Fraud Together”. It aims to encourage fraud victims (especially individuals and smaller businesses) to make more use of the civil Courts for asset recovery purpose, particularly in relation to cases which are unlikely to attract a criminal investigation or prosecution.
The report highlights how fraud can have devastating financial, physical, emotional and psychological effects on victims and how it can cause businesses to suffer reputational damage, job losses and even total collapse.
Interesting points to note from the report (non-exhaustive list)
There are many other interesting points to note from the report, including all of the Fraud Advisory Panel’s recommendations.
Opinion
The report rightly points out that the Police’s inability to investigate all instances of fraud may be acting as a disincentive for certain victim groups (particularly organisations) to report their experiences to official agencies. Disparities between the nature/level of fraud investigated by regional Police forces are also known to exist.
The report also highlights the fact that many victims have no understanding of the differences between the criminal and civil justice systems. Some of them end up dealing with matters on their own or take no action at all.
They simply remain unaware of the full range of legal options available to them on the civil front. These include for instance civil litigation, asset recovery strategies, insurance claims, dispute resolution procedures, insolvency proceedings etc. Certain strategic applications before the civil Courts such as for instance freezing, disclosure and other orders may be worth considering to maximise the chances of asset recovery.
These options can be effectively used as an alternative to, or in combination with, criminal proceedings.
It is also important for victims to understand that, in England and Wales (contrary for instance to civil law jurisdictions such as France), confiscation and other orders which may be obtained on the criminal front are not aimed at compensating victims (unlike civil asset recovery strategies and litigation). They are aimed at depriving fraudsters of the financial benefits obtained from their criminal conduct.
If in doubt, it is always worth obtaining a fraud professional’s initial advice both on the civil and criminal fronts before considering whether to write off the loss for commercial reasons. This is particularly relevant to organisations. An investigation of a fraud may indeed lead to the discovery of the existence of a wider fraud, with internal/external collusion, which may have been going on and remained undetected for years.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Punam Sood
Cate Maguire
Nicola Finnerty
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
On May 21st 2013 PapaNeuf commented:
I'm Canadian, where many of our laws (civil & criminal) may be originally based on the British (in Quebec, French) systems.
As you note, in England there is widespread ignorance of the distinctions between various legal categories, providing varying options for victims, in different courts, etc.
I believe this to be true, in Canada, as well. Not only in matters of fraud, but employment law, etc., etc.
If ignorance is no excuse, when prosecuting someone, it baffles me that ignorance is not so much an excuse, for victims, but is the eternal hope of the fraudsters, or other perpetrators, that most of their victims are ignorant of the laws, and are not likely to be taken seriously, (as a case worthy of police or other enforcement pursuit), or the victims are shrugged off, with the adage, "Buyer beware". The smug attitude I have seen, toward the "little" things, which are, relatively speaking, of greater hurt than much larger frauds, etc., in corporate matters, because for the "little" people/businesses, etc., it may well be everything they had to depend on for their survival, future pension, etc.
Part of the illness or reticence in prosecution, or taking on of these cases, may well be a problem of structure. There are not enough professionals, whose salaries do not depend on the size/portion of the recovery, etc., made available to the little people/businesses.
I wonder whether it might be worthy of serious consideration, that the social fabric of our communities be reorganized with designated local authorities, empowered to deal with immediate, local, non-violent matters. It could be structured so as to create a cell group, with 7 elected, 2 appointed by local municipal government, or regional government, etc., as appropriate in the country, society, in which this is done. They would hear these local cases, between neighbours, or learn about scammers, fraudsters, and other local threats to the most vulnerable, or significant matters of concern for the entire neighbourhood. They would be empowered to make rulings, encourage Victim - Offender Reconciliation Programs, within, or near to the neighbourhood, and failing that, impose corrective measures, which, in some cases, might be to seize/liquidate perpetrators' assets, enough for recompense for the victims.
Sorry for the scroll.