When is an expert, an expert?

It took a bitter divorce case for Ms Labeur to be discovered for the fraud she is. Her husband decided to inform the authorities during the divorce; can one safely assume that she would have gone undetected otherwise? It is cases like this that demonstrate the huge pitfalls of not peforming even the most cursory checks before appointing an employee or an expert. This will undoubtedly lead to lawsuits, as the outcome of several cases may have to be re-examined.
____________________________________________________

Adam Sage in Paris reports:

Régine Labeur was hailed as a respected psychologist whose evidence was pivotal in more than 400 trials in the Dordogne, southwest France. She testified in criminal cases, explaining, for instance, the hidden character of serial rapists or the trauma suffered by families and friends of murder victims.

She also played a central role in many divorce cases, assessing the emotional stability of parents seeking the residency of their children. So when officials discovered that she had apparently never qualified as a psychologist, there was widespread stupefaction.

Mrs Labeur, 53, is accused of fooling judicial authorities with false certificates that went undiscovered for four years.

She has been placed under formal investigation on suspicion of fraud and usurping the title of psychologist and faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (£67,000).

Maître Frédérique Pohu-Panier, her lawyer, declined to comment on the allegations. The inquiry is understood to have started when Mrs Labeur’s husband, from whom she is divorcing, told police that she lacked qualifications.

“It’s incomprehensible,” Françoise Lorrin, another judicial psychologist in the Dordogne, said. “When I applied, I submitted my degrees and also scientific publications, which prove your competence.” Le Parisien newspaper said there was no record that Mrs Labeur had published a single paper.

“Certain filters didn’t work,” Yves Squercioni, the state prosecutor in Périgueux in the Dordogne, said. “You can’t become a judicial expert through improvisation.”

Mr Squercioni ruled out a review of the cases in which Mrs Labeur had given evidence, despite the fraud claims. However, a lawyer in the Dordogne told The Times: “A number of us are looking at the possibility of lodging appeals. It is difficult because the French judicial system is always very reluctant to reopen cases that have been judged.

“But it might be possible to overturn rulings in cases where her reports were critical — in custody cases where she wrote that a father was psychologically incapable of looking after his children, for example.”

The scandal is reminiscent of the French film Intimate Stranger, in which the actor Fabrice Luchini played a false psychoanalyst. It also highlights the importance of l’expert psychologue in the French judicial system.

Last month, for example, Mrs Labeur was called to Dordogne Criminal Court to tell the jury about Thierry Caballero, a serial rapist, after a consultation with him while he was in prison awaiting trial.

Her words were damning: “He is far removed from reality as far as his actions are concerned, he does not feel any remorse, he is incapable of controlling his urges.” She said that Caballero, who was sentenced to 14 years in jail, had a “fragile” character and added: “Perhaps he has a hidden side.”

According to Le Parisien, Mrs Labeur earned €60,000 a year for her reports for French justice — a significant sum given that many of France’s 40,000 fully qualified psychologists struggle to make a living.

Should there be pre-employment screening to fish out terrorists?

The FSA has warned again and again about the risk of potential terrorists infiltrating the UK financial systems through gaining employement in permanent or contracting/temp post. Most financial institutions conduct pretty rigorous checks on their permanent employees, but the majority of temps and contractors go unchecked, thus providing an easy route to entry.

Sanctions checks are a quick and cost efffective way to spot any applicant who may be a suspected or convicted terrorist or money launderer. Make sure that your pre-employment checks include sanctions as part of the basic background screening of permanent employees and contractors alike.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Angsuman Chakraborty reports on his blog:

I know most of you would be outraged at such a question. However just for a moment take a look at the biodata of a jehadi who worked as a senior software engineer / architect at Yahoo. He is a capable technologist, has deep understanding of Linux, Unix & nginx, httpd and other technologies. He is a must hire at most companies he will apply to. However the situation changes drastically if you knew he was a hardcore jehadi and responsible for mass-murder / terrorist attacks.

The key question obviously is how prevalent are such hi-tech jehadis?
Worldwide Muslim fundamentalists are aggressively enlisting the help of computer professionals for hacking (Peerbhoy hacked unsecured wi-fi networks to spread terror threats and more). Peerbhoy's mentor himself enlisted 8-10 hi-tech professionals. He had one person dedicated to bring around Peerbhoy to their cause. They pamper such professionals, tell them about the plight of moslem's worldwide and indoctrinate them in the cause of jihad (and houris?).

So I would say there is a distinct possibility that any company can face the plight of Yahoo. Imagine the embarrassment of Yahoo worldwide for hiring a muslim terrorist. Would you like to work for a company which hires terrorists, albeit unknowingly? I don't blame them; nevertheless it is bad PR. It tarnishes the image of the company, may even create fear within employees and definitely harrassment for all.

In light of apparent surge in hi-tech jihadis, does it make sense to have a system to screen out potential trouble-makers?

Theoretically, can we even think of a set of questions which can screen out potential terrorists? Remember the lame questions you get asked at the airport security check-in? That would be the worse end of the spectrum and I don't think will give any benefit.

Only subtle psychological questioning can potentially reveal such people. I think terrorists are common people who probably have a bad gene which somehow allows them to forget the value of human life. It appears the attraction of several dozen virgins in heaven is also rather hard to ignore. Should we look for repressed personality, people who feel persecuted in some way by the world? This is such a wide area to explore.

I am sure many entrepreneurs are thinking about it too, even if they won't admit it. What is your take on this issue?

Company Directors are not immune from fraud

It is not unusual for companies to neglect applying their normal pre-employment screening practices when it comes to their directors, board members and non-executive directors. Research released by the UK's Insolvency Service showed that there is a significant increase in criminal malpractice amongst company directors.

The directors of 91 companies were banned for financial crime over the year as more directors turned to fraud to try to salvage something for themselves from ailing companies. In this tough economic times, companies should also make an extra effort to conduct proper due dilligence on their suppliers, especially those suppliers who have access to sensitive company information, or client data.

Guy Logan reports for Personnel Today:

_________________________________________________________________

HR must be on watch for directors’ fraud
Guy Logan05 May 2009 14:11


HR must be extra-vigilant against a rise in fraud by company directors during the recession, a lawyer has warned.

Statistics published by the government's UK Insolvency Service at the weekend revealed that the number of directors banned for criminal malpractice jumped by almost one third (31%), to 1,852 directors who were charged in the 12 months to March.

Disqualification proceedings launched against directors for crimes such as fraud or theft rose by 72%, while cases of misappropriation of assets grew by almost 20%.

Edward Starling, solicitor at law firm Wedlake Bell, warned that company directors were just as likely to commit fraud as junior employees.

"It's well known that fraud increases in the recession, but it's possible that some counter-fraud departments miss serious fraud because they are too focused on the smaller fish [more junior employees]," he told Personnel Today.

"The increase in disqualification cases being launched over the past year is huge, and this number will only rise in the coming months."

Starling added that limited resources for the Insolvency Service, which unearthed the majority of cases of malpractice by directors, would mean many bosses would elude justice.

Research last year found one in five employees admitted to committing fraud by exaggerating expense claims.