Senior Public Sector Worker spared prison over lies told on CV

Powerchex Warns of the Consequences of CV Embellishment. This is our most recent press release following another case where the courts got serious about lies on CVs and a major UK employer learned a lesson in retrospective screening. Read on.


A senior NHS Human Resources manager who exaggerated her qualifications has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay nearly £10,000 compensation.

The individual in question was found to have made the claims when her Trust merged with another in 2006: staff were asked to submit expressions of interests for new posts, and she made a series of misrepresentations in an attempt to obtain alternative employment.

She last week pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud by false representation at Exeter Crown Court. As well as the fine, she must also carry out 150 hours of unpaid community work. The conviction follows an investigation by the NHS Counter Fraud Service.

Alexandra Kelly is the Managing Director of city pre-employment firm, Powerchex. Kelly has considerable experience of similar situations and is well aware of the repercussions that CV embellishment can have on both in the individual and the company affected.

“Jobseekers should be aware of the perils of being caught lying on their CV or any other documentation used in order to gain employment. More and more employers are outsourcing their pre-employment screening to professional firms with the tools and experience to uncover CV embellishments or even outright fabrications. While this particular situation is unusual in its severity, most employers will look to terminate if they get wind that you have misrepresented yourself at any stage of the hiring process.”

Perhaps even more saliently, employers need to be aware of the reputational damage CV embellishment can cause to their company, especially if information comes to light after the individual has already started their employment. “Sadly it is no longer enough for firms to simply ask their employees to sign a declaration stating that any information supplied about themselves is true,” continues Kelly. “Like the above situation, such incidences can gain bring considerable negative exposure, with associated financial and reputational consequences. Firms must make clear to their potential employees that the information they provide during the recruitment process will be subject to relevant checks, and that employment is conditional upon verification of all information supplied. Unfortunately, the risks are now too great not to err on the side of caution.”

Criminal checks, the FSA, and Approved Persons - Do you have it right?

For the longest time, HR departments in the City have debated as to whether the FSA requires criminal checks. Often, they decide not to do them and they leave it up the the applicant to disclose any criminal history on their FSA form A. Finally, the FSA has revealed a clear policy. City firms are responsible for doing CRB checks on their approved persons. So, if you are still on the fence, read on:

_____________________________________________________________________

Powerchex Warns of the Risk of Insufficient Background Checking
after The FSA takes Action

Insurance Brokerage Firm penalised for failing to conduct basic checks
London, 3rd December 2009. The Financial Services Authority has banned two insurance
brokers for colluding to conceal a criminal conviction. The FSA also cancelled permission for an Insurance Brokerage firm to carry on regulated activities.
Margaret Cole, the FSA’s director of enforcement and financial crime, said:
“We have made examples of [these parties] to send a warning to firms and
individuals: do not lie to the FSA. This case, and others that are due to follow, serve as a clear signal about the consequences of giving anything less than full and frank disclosure of material information to the FSA.”1
Alexandra Kelly, a director of pre‐employment screening firm at Powerchex, believes that the Insurance brokerage firm engineered its own downfall; “The FSA is explicit that it expects firms to conduct checks on individuals applying to work in controlled functions. This unsurprisingly includes criminal record checks as standard. Had the firm in question conducted such checks, the FSA would have had no cause to take such drastic action.”
In this particular case, one of the brothers had applied for a controlled function having recently been convicted of conspiracy to defraud. On his FSA application, he signed a declaration that he had no previous criminal convictions, and was not the subject of any current criminal proceedings. His brother helped conceal the conviction from the FSA, despite occupying a regulated role himself and knowing the risks this involved.
“Sadly it is no longer enough for firms to simply ask their employees to sign a declaration stating that they do not have any criminal convictions,” continues Kelly. “Especially for those individuals applying for controlled functions, it is critically important that relevant identity,credit and criminal record checks are conducted as an absolute minimum. In this particular case, failure to do so has resulted in the cancellation of permission from the FSA to carry out regulated activities. I think this ruling will cause a lot of firms to sit up and take notice.”