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.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
E-Verify in Hot Water about Error Rate
An SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management http://shrmjax.org/pdfs/08-0447%202nd%20Quarter%202008.pdf) backed bill launched an employment verification debate on the other side of the pond. Apparently monster-sized databases are debated around the world, not just in the UK.
__________________________________________________________________________
Mark Schoeff Jr reports for Workforce Week
With momentum building for Congress to address comprehensive immigration reform later this year, two members of the House have introduced a bill to put employment verification at the center of the debate.
Written by Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, and Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the measure would establish a mandatory electronic verification system that replaces an existing government-run system that has been roundly criticized by employer groups.
Giffords and Johnson hope their bill, the New Employee Verification Act, will either be the foundation for work-site enforcement in a broader immigration bill or move through Congress on its own.
The bill was introduced Wednesday, April 22, and announced by Giffords and Johnson on Thursday, April 23. It was originally offered in the previous Congress but had to be reintroduced because it did not become law.
The legislation mandates that all employers sign up for the Electronic Employment Verification System, which is based on the new-hire system used in each state to enforce child support payments. About 90 percent of employers use the new-hire system already.
Information for recently hired employees would be checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases to determine work eligibility. The system would eliminate the I-9 immigration form.
Alternatively, employers could register for the Secure Electronic Employment Verification System, a network of government-certified private sector companies that would authenticate a workers’ identity through a biometric identifier like a thumbprint.
The bill would establish civil and criminal penalties for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Giffords and Johnson have been working with the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce on the legislation. The organization is led by the Society for Human Resource Management and also includes the HR Policy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The HR groups have led a charge against E-Verify, the government-run electronic verification system that is currently used on a voluntary basis by 118,917 employers.
“E-Verify’s significant error rate and reliance on paper-based identity documents often deny legal workers employment and can lead to fraud and identity theft,” the HR Initiative wrote in an April 23 letter to members of Congress. “Employers, in turn, are left vulnerable to sanctions through no fault of their own.”
E-Verify detractors say that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.
E-Verify proponents, which include many Republicans and conservative Democrats, say that the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent.
Like E-Verify, the Electronic Employee Verification System would rely on the Social Security database. But the Giffords-Johnson bill requires that the Social Security information be cleaned up before the new system is launched.
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Giffords called the proposal a “simple, effective, balanced alternative to E-Verify. It is a realistic piece of legislation.”
She also touted a provision that would establish federal pre-emption of state laws on employment verification. Her home state of Arizona was the first of several to mandate that employers use E-Verify—an experiment that is not succeeding, according to Giffords.
“Immigration is in the federal purview,” she said. “We should be dealing with it at the congressional level, not piecemeal state by state.”
It’s not yet clear when Congress will take up immigration reform. A comprehensive bill sparked political combustion in 2007 and died in the Senate. In the last couple weeks, the Obama administration has indicated it wants to address comprehensive immigration this year.
So far, individual dimensions of reform—such as verification and employment visas—have not been able to move on their own. But E-Verify is scheduled to expire on September 30, which might give work-site enforcement separate momentum.
Johnson says the electronic verification bill doesn’t have to be held up until comprehensive reform is complete.
“This year, we stand a great chance of passing it out of the House and Senate,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t have to wait. It can be combined later.”
As the immigration debate gets under way, HR organizations are trying to influence the outcome, especially on verification.
“SHRM feels strongly that employers should be part of the solution to illegal immigration,” said Mike Aitken, SHRM director of government affairs.
__________________________________________________________________________
Mark Schoeff Jr reports for Workforce Week
With momentum building for Congress to address comprehensive immigration reform later this year, two members of the House have introduced a bill to put employment verification at the center of the debate.
Written by Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, and Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the measure would establish a mandatory electronic verification system that replaces an existing government-run system that has been roundly criticized by employer groups.
Giffords and Johnson hope their bill, the New Employee Verification Act, will either be the foundation for work-site enforcement in a broader immigration bill or move through Congress on its own.
The bill was introduced Wednesday, April 22, and announced by Giffords and Johnson on Thursday, April 23. It was originally offered in the previous Congress but had to be reintroduced because it did not become law.
The legislation mandates that all employers sign up for the Electronic Employment Verification System, which is based on the new-hire system used in each state to enforce child support payments. About 90 percent of employers use the new-hire system already.
Information for recently hired employees would be checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases to determine work eligibility. The system would eliminate the I-9 immigration form.
Alternatively, employers could register for the Secure Electronic Employment Verification System, a network of government-certified private sector companies that would authenticate a workers’ identity through a biometric identifier like a thumbprint.
The bill would establish civil and criminal penalties for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Giffords and Johnson have been working with the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce on the legislation. The organization is led by the Society for Human Resource Management and also includes the HR Policy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The HR groups have led a charge against E-Verify, the government-run electronic verification system that is currently used on a voluntary basis by 118,917 employers.
“E-Verify’s significant error rate and reliance on paper-based identity documents often deny legal workers employment and can lead to fraud and identity theft,” the HR Initiative wrote in an April 23 letter to members of Congress. “Employers, in turn, are left vulnerable to sanctions through no fault of their own.”
E-Verify detractors say that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.
E-Verify proponents, which include many Republicans and conservative Democrats, say that the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent.
Like E-Verify, the Electronic Employee Verification System would rely on the Social Security database. But the Giffords-Johnson bill requires that the Social Security information be cleaned up before the new system is launched.
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Giffords called the proposal a “simple, effective, balanced alternative to E-Verify. It is a realistic piece of legislation.”
She also touted a provision that would establish federal pre-emption of state laws on employment verification. Her home state of Arizona was the first of several to mandate that employers use E-Verify—an experiment that is not succeeding, according to Giffords.
“Immigration is in the federal purview,” she said. “We should be dealing with it at the congressional level, not piecemeal state by state.”
It’s not yet clear when Congress will take up immigration reform. A comprehensive bill sparked political combustion in 2007 and died in the Senate. In the last couple weeks, the Obama administration has indicated it wants to address comprehensive immigration this year.
So far, individual dimensions of reform—such as verification and employment visas—have not been able to move on their own. But E-Verify is scheduled to expire on September 30, which might give work-site enforcement separate momentum.
Johnson says the electronic verification bill doesn’t have to be held up until comprehensive reform is complete.
“This year, we stand a great chance of passing it out of the House and Senate,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t have to wait. It can be combined later.”
As the immigration debate gets under way, HR organizations are trying to influence the outcome, especially on verification.
“SHRM feels strongly that employers should be part of the solution to illegal immigration,” said Mike Aitken, SHRM director of government affairs.
Small finance houses need to do more to keep out rogue clients
Large financial institutions are quite stringent when it comes to screening their suppliers. Due diligence can be thorough and exhaustive. Small to medium financial firms often satisfy themselves with much less. An email, a credit or media check may be enough to satisfy them. The FSA in a consultation paper issued last year, stated that financial institutions should vet their suppliers and other third parties to ensure that they have sufficient controls to ensure data security. In addition, companies should take the time to check the publicly available sanctions list on the Treasury's website, to make sure that they are not providing financial services to rogue firms and money launderers.
Patrick Hosking and Michael Herman report in The Times:
_____________________________________________________________________
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said last night that many small and medium-sized financial institutions have insufficient command and controls to prevent them doing business with those on the Government's blacklist of financial sanctions.The list, which is maintained by the Treasury, includes about 1,400 individuals and 500 entities in Britain and abroad. It includes individuals and businesses linked to al-Qaeda, the Taliban as well as North Korea and Iran and people linked more generally to terrorist financing.Providing banking or other financial services to members of the list can be a criminal offence and businesses are required to have sufficient controls in place to avoid this.After surveying 228 financial firms, the FSA concluded: “There is significant scope across the industry for improvement in firms' systems and controls.” Leading financial institutions were also said to be “falling short”. The report highlighted one specific area of ignorance among British firms: a widespread belief that the sanctions applied only to foreign entities and individuals. In fact, the FSA reminded financial businesses that the banned list contains 50 individuals and 12 entities based in the UK.It also said that there was widespread confusion about the sanctions regime, with many firms believing that it took affect only with financial transactions above a certain size and therefore exempted smaller businesses.Another failing was that many firms were screening new clients retrospectively, sometimes weeks after an initial account had been opened, instead of before clients were taken on.The Treasury is responsible for policing firms that break the sanctions, but the FSA's remit includes making sure that UK financial groups have sufficient systems in place to prevent them from accepting blacklisted clients.
Patrick Hosking and Michael Herman report in The Times:
_____________________________________________________________________
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) said last night that many small and medium-sized financial institutions have insufficient command and controls to prevent them doing business with those on the Government's blacklist of financial sanctions.The list, which is maintained by the Treasury, includes about 1,400 individuals and 500 entities in Britain and abroad. It includes individuals and businesses linked to al-Qaeda, the Taliban as well as North Korea and Iran and people linked more generally to terrorist financing.Providing banking or other financial services to members of the list can be a criminal offence and businesses are required to have sufficient controls in place to avoid this.After surveying 228 financial firms, the FSA concluded: “There is significant scope across the industry for improvement in firms' systems and controls.” Leading financial institutions were also said to be “falling short”. The report highlighted one specific area of ignorance among British firms: a widespread belief that the sanctions applied only to foreign entities and individuals. In fact, the FSA reminded financial businesses that the banned list contains 50 individuals and 12 entities based in the UK.It also said that there was widespread confusion about the sanctions regime, with many firms believing that it took affect only with financial transactions above a certain size and therefore exempted smaller businesses.Another failing was that many firms were screening new clients retrospectively, sometimes weeks after an initial account had been opened, instead of before clients were taken on.The Treasury is responsible for policing firms that break the sanctions, but the FSA's remit includes making sure that UK financial groups have sufficient systems in place to prevent them from accepting blacklisted clients.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Launch of CRB's new Vetting and Barring Scheme
The Criminal Records Bureau is overhauling their process and introducing a new Vetting and Barring Scheme designed to offer a more stream-lined, faster system of workplace vetting for those working with children and vulnerable adults. There w ill be no significant changes for financial institutions who apply for Standard Disclosures for Approved Persons. The main change initially will be that Standard CRB checks will no longer be available for those working with children or the vulnerable; all such individuals will be entitled to an Enhanced check.
Read below for the announcement from the CRB:
_________________________________________________________________
Today, the Home Office announced new measures to protect the vulnerable with the launch of the new Vetting and Barring Scheme later this year.
The changes planned for 12 October 2009 and the new safeguards that will be introduced to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable adults are outlined below.
From 12 October 2009:
The creation of two new ISA barred lists. These lists will replace the existing List 99 and POCA, POVA Lists.
Access to these new ISA lists will be available on request as part of an Enhanced CRB check.
Eligibility for Enhanced CRB checks will expand to include more employment and voluntary positions; such roles will be known as regulated positions.
Standard CRB checks will no longer be available for those working with children or the vulnerable.
There is no change to the current application form or application process.
From July 2010:
Individuals will be able, via Registered/Umbrella Bodies, to apply to the CRB for ISA-registration if they are applying to work with children and/or vulnerable adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will be a 5 year phased roll out for ISA registration of those individuals who currently work with children and/or vulnerable adults.
Employers will be able to express an interest in a person’s ISA-registration and informed of any changes to that person’s ISA-registration status.
The CRB will introduce a new application form to allow applications for ISA-registration and CRB checks to be made on the same form.
Employers can carry out free, online checks of a person’s ISA-registration status.
From November 2010:
It will be a legal requirement for individuals to register with the ISA if they intend to work or currently work with children and/or vulnerable adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
For more information about the full range of safeguards and the dates when each one comes into force, please click here to view the full Home Office press release.
For the latest information coming out from the ISA and its new service please visit the ISA’s website (www.isa-gov.org) where you can register to receive regular updates.
Read below for the announcement from the CRB:
_________________________________________________________________
Today, the Home Office announced new measures to protect the vulnerable with the launch of the new Vetting and Barring Scheme later this year.
The changes planned for 12 October 2009 and the new safeguards that will be introduced to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable adults are outlined below.
From 12 October 2009:
The creation of two new ISA barred lists. These lists will replace the existing List 99 and POCA, POVA Lists.
Access to these new ISA lists will be available on request as part of an Enhanced CRB check.
Eligibility for Enhanced CRB checks will expand to include more employment and voluntary positions; such roles will be known as regulated positions.
Standard CRB checks will no longer be available for those working with children or the vulnerable.
There is no change to the current application form or application process.
From July 2010:
Individuals will be able, via Registered/Umbrella Bodies, to apply to the CRB for ISA-registration if they are applying to work with children and/or vulnerable adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will be a 5 year phased roll out for ISA registration of those individuals who currently work with children and/or vulnerable adults.
Employers will be able to express an interest in a person’s ISA-registration and informed of any changes to that person’s ISA-registration status.
The CRB will introduce a new application form to allow applications for ISA-registration and CRB checks to be made on the same form.
Employers can carry out free, online checks of a person’s ISA-registration status.
From November 2010:
It will be a legal requirement for individuals to register with the ISA if they intend to work or currently work with children and/or vulnerable adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
For more information about the full range of safeguards and the dates when each one comes into force, please click here to view the full Home Office press release.
For the latest information coming out from the ISA and its new service please visit the ISA’s website (www.isa-gov.org) where you can register to receive regular updates.
Monday, 23 March 2009
CIFAS Staff Fraud Database
CIFAS FRAUDSCAPE
The CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is a data-sharing scheme that enables responsible employers to file proven cases of staff fraud in order to prevent the perpetrator moving unchallenged to a new employer to commit further fraud.
An employer accesses the database in order to:
file data about identified staff fraud cases
check staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members.
This can be done either to pre-screen applicants or to screen current employees. Almost 120 employers already share information in this way. As a member of the Staff Fraud Database, Powerchex can access the database on behalf of CIFAS members.Click on the link below for an analysis of the cases of staff fraud filed to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database by those organisations.
http://www.cifas.org.uk/download/fraudscape.pdf
The CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is a data-sharing scheme that enables responsible employers to file proven cases of staff fraud in order to prevent the perpetrator moving unchallenged to a new employer to commit further fraud.
An employer accesses the database in order to:
file data about identified staff fraud cases
check staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members.
This can be done either to pre-screen applicants or to screen current employees. Almost 120 employers already share information in this way. As a member of the Staff Fraud Database, Powerchex can access the database on behalf of CIFAS members.Click on the link below for an analysis of the cases of staff fraud filed to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database by those organisations.
http://www.cifas.org.uk/download/fraudscape.pdf
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Should hiring decisions be made by looking at social networking sites?
Views vary widely on the subject of trawling through social networking sites as part of the pre-employment screening process. Here at Powerchex our view has always been that there are too many legal and ethical pitfalls to this process and for that reason we do not incorporate these searches to our screening process. As an employer you need to make up your mind of course. Here are two views on the subject that may help you decide:
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Verifying Chinese Degrees and Qualifications
Anyone that has tried to verify a Chinese Degree will tell you that it is a time consuming and sometimes unreliable process. The easier way to do it is through the China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
The Introduction of CDGDC China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC) is an administrative department directly under the Ministry of Education, operating under the joint leadership of The Ministry of Education and The Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council (ADCSC). CDGDC is a non-profit agency with the independent qualification of legal entity.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
Thousands of policemen have criminal records
According to a recent investigation by the Guardian newspaper, records were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These records indicate that more than 1,000 service officers have been convicted of assault, burglary and dishonesty. This is an interesting finding that raises questions as to whether people of questionable character should be in law enforcement.
Jo Adetunji reports for the Guardian:
_________________________________________________________________
More than 1,000 serving police have criminal convictions ranging from assault to burglary, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the figures showed that some officers who committed violent offences while serving or were proved dishonest were being allowed to keep their jobs.
He said police chiefs needed to "get tough on bad apples" in their teams.
"It is staggering that so many of the people entrusted to protect us from crime have criminal convictions themselves. It is even more worrying that so many police officers convicted of serious crimes involving dishonesty or violence have been allowed to keep their jobs. The public entrust the police with the use of legal force precisely because they are self-disciplined and restrained, which is why anyone convicted of a violent offence should be dismissed. I cannot see how a police officer convicted of dishonesty can perform their duty effectively.
"The trust that is absolutely vital in policing is seriously undermined when police officers are being convicted of crimes of dishonesty. Allowing police officers convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty to continue serving merely brings the vast majority of law-abiding and diligent officers into disrepute."
Although there were vetting procedures for dealing with new applicants, there was no Home Office guidance for dealing with officers committing offences while serving, Huhne said.
"There is a disturbing lack of consistency in how police forces deal with officers who are convicted of crimes. The Home Office recognises this decisive problem for applicants but not for serving officers."
According to the data, obtained from 41 of 52 forces, a further 210 officers have resigned or been dismissed from their jobs since 2004 because of their convictions. Only 37 have been dismissed for dishonesty.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said officers convicted of crimes would not automatically lose their jobs.
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and head of workforce development for Acpo, said: "The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times. Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.
"It should be remembered that there are just over 140,000 police officers in the country. It is very rare that a person with a criminal conviction will be recruited into the police service.
"Where an officer has committed misconduct, which can include a criminal offence, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken. Each case is judged on its merit. The force concerned will then take action depending on a range of factors including the severity of the offence and its impact on an officer's ability to carry out their duties."
According to the figures, the forces with the highest number of police with convictions are the Metropolitan police with 274, West Midlands with 121 and Strathclyde, 107. Merseyside has 82, while Manchester and Kent have 44. Grampian has 34 and South Wales 31.
The forces with the highest percentage of officers with criminal convictions are Merseyside and West Midlands, followed by the Met and South Wales police.
Jo Adetunji reports for the Guardian:
_________________________________________________________________
More than 1,000 serving police have criminal convictions ranging from assault to burglary, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the figures showed that some officers who committed violent offences while serving or were proved dishonest were being allowed to keep their jobs.
He said police chiefs needed to "get tough on bad apples" in their teams.
"It is staggering that so many of the people entrusted to protect us from crime have criminal convictions themselves. It is even more worrying that so many police officers convicted of serious crimes involving dishonesty or violence have been allowed to keep their jobs. The public entrust the police with the use of legal force precisely because they are self-disciplined and restrained, which is why anyone convicted of a violent offence should be dismissed. I cannot see how a police officer convicted of dishonesty can perform their duty effectively.
"The trust that is absolutely vital in policing is seriously undermined when police officers are being convicted of crimes of dishonesty. Allowing police officers convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty to continue serving merely brings the vast majority of law-abiding and diligent officers into disrepute."
Although there were vetting procedures for dealing with new applicants, there was no Home Office guidance for dealing with officers committing offences while serving, Huhne said.
"There is a disturbing lack of consistency in how police forces deal with officers who are convicted of crimes. The Home Office recognises this decisive problem for applicants but not for serving officers."
According to the data, obtained from 41 of 52 forces, a further 210 officers have resigned or been dismissed from their jobs since 2004 because of their convictions. Only 37 have been dismissed for dishonesty.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said officers convicted of crimes would not automatically lose their jobs.
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and head of workforce development for Acpo, said: "The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times. Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.
"It should be remembered that there are just over 140,000 police officers in the country. It is very rare that a person with a criminal conviction will be recruited into the police service.
"Where an officer has committed misconduct, which can include a criminal offence, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken. Each case is judged on its merit. The force concerned will then take action depending on a range of factors including the severity of the offence and its impact on an officer's ability to carry out their duties."
According to the figures, the forces with the highest number of police with convictions are the Metropolitan police with 274, West Midlands with 121 and Strathclyde, 107. Merseyside has 82, while Manchester and Kent have 44. Grampian has 34 and South Wales 31.
The forces with the highest percentage of officers with criminal convictions are Merseyside and West Midlands, followed by the Met and South Wales police.
Criminal Records Checks and a firm's recruitment policy
We are often asked as to what firms should say on the recruitment policy as it relates to criminal records checks. Below is our suggested wording:
___________________________________________________________________
When reviewing the results of a criminal records check an organisation should consider:
• Whether the offence would cast doubt on the individual’s or organisation’s reputation.
• Whether the offence would affect an individual’s ability to do the job.
• Whether the conviction is relevant to the particular post.
• The length of time since the offence occurred.
• The nature and background of the offence (e.g. violent crime or a history of violence which may impact on an organisation’s duty of care to its staff).
• The seriousness of the offence.
___________________________________________________________________
When reviewing the results of a criminal records check an organisation should consider:
• Whether the offence would cast doubt on the individual’s or organisation’s reputation.
• Whether the offence would affect an individual’s ability to do the job.
• Whether the conviction is relevant to the particular post.
• The length of time since the offence occurred.
• The nature and background of the offence (e.g. violent crime or a history of violence which may impact on an organisation’s duty of care to its staff).
• The seriousness of the offence.
Friday, 6 March 2009
The Information Commissioner is showing his teeth... finally!
Big news today about a company which was holding, processing and selling personal data which was obtained with questionable means and without applicant consent. Powerchex issued the following press release:
____________________________________________
“Show respect for personal data” warns pre-employment screening company Powerchex
The Information Commissioner’s Office is showing its teeth in a case that may spur far reaching regulation of companies that maintain and sell personal data.
As part of an investigation of the Guardian, The Information Commissioner’s Office closed down an investigating firm that was maintaining and selling data from an illegal database. Buyers of the information, which include some of the biggest construction firms in the UK, will also be prosecuted.
Yesterday David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. "Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied [by the industry]. "The covert system enabled Mr Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees. Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database."
“Companies have often shown a cavalier attitude on how they store, transmit and protect personal data” states Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of pre-employment screening company Powerchex.
“Light sentences from the Information Commissioner, as well as a perceived impression that companies that break the code will not be prosecuted have resulted in a lax treatment of personal data including employee, customer and other such sensitive data.”
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates the UK financial services sector, recently issued a consultation paper to help firms ensure that they treat customer and employee data in a secure fashion.
Examples of good practice in terms of treating personal datas laid out in the report include:
· All customer/employee data to be disposed of securely using shredders or confidential waste bins
· Treating all data as confidential waste to eliminate confusion about which type of bin to use.
· Providing guidance for travelling or home-based staff on the secure disposal of customer data
· Conducting due diligence of data security standards at third-party suppliers before contracts are agreed
· Regular reviews of third party suppliers’ data security systems and controls
· Ensuring tht third-party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate
· The use of secure internet links to transfer data to third parties
“Companies that handle personal data should make sure that third parties who process this data are also compliant with the Data Protection Act” says Kelly, “and of course, everyone must be registered with the Information Commissioner” she concludes.
________________________________________________________
The Guardian that broke the story after investigating reported:
More than 40 major British companies face legal action for allegedly buying secret personal data about thousands of workers they wanted to vet before employing them.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, will today publish a list of the companies he believes may have broken data protection laws, after an investigation by his office that was sparked by fears that many workers were being unfairly "blacklisted".
The commissioner alleges that the firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have, for many years, covertly bought details of workers' trade union activities and their conduct at work.
Thomas believes that workers have been unfairly denied employment because they have had no chance of challenging any inaccurate information, some of which has been stored for decades.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to the claims, many companies refused to comment. Others denied using the data to "blacklist" troublesome workers covertly, or said they had stopped buying the data.
The commissioner has already taken action rapidly to close down a private investigator who is accused of clandestinely compiling an "extensive intelligence database" of 3,000 workers with details that stretch back to the 1980s.
The commissioner is to prosecute the private detective, Ian Kerr, who is accused of selling the information to companies in the construction industry when they wanted to vet potential staff. Thomas said he had seized documents which, he says, show that files on individuals included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward, definite problems, no go", "do not touch", "orchestrated strike action" and "lazy and a trouble-stirrer".
David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied.
The covert system enabled Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information on workers for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees.
"Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database.
"Trading people's personal details in this way is unlawful and we are determined to stamp out this type of activity."
Construction workers have long complained that they have been stopped from getting work because companies were covertly turning away people they believed to be active trade unionists. Hard evidence has, until now, been hard to come by, and the construction industry has always denied it.
Steve Acheson, who believes he has been blacklisted, said he was "absolutely thrilled" by the findings of the commissioner's investigation.
The electrician, 55, from Denton in Manchester, said: "I've been angry for so long. It affects your character and demeanour - it's the fact it's so blatantly unjust. I was disgusted that one man could make a living from denying other men the right to work".
The Labour government has been criticised for passing a law banning the practice of so-called blacklists in 1999, but then, in a U-turn, deciding not to take the final step of implementing the law on the grounds that "there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was occurring". Technically, therefore, "blacklisting" is still legal.
Last night, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said it was prepared to review its position.
"The government is committed to monitoring any evidence that blacklisting is resurfacing in the UK," said a spokesman for the department. However, the information commissioner has powers to take action if he believes data protection laws have been broken.
His officials raided the offices of Kerr, the private investigator, in Droitwich, Worcestershire last week, seizing what the commissioner calls "an intelligence database" of 3,213 individuals.
Thomas said the "comprehensive card index system" held "sensitive" personal data, including details of trade union activity, employment conduct and personal relationships.
He added there was also information about whether the individual "may pose a threat to industrial relations between an employer and its employees". Some information was more than 30 years old, he said.
He has also seized invoices, which he says were issued by Kerr to companies for checking names on his database. He said they showed that the companies had paid Kerr an annual subscription and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted him to run through his database.
The Guardian understands that, in what appears to be a system for centralising records in the construction industry, companies sent information to Kerr so that it could be pooled with other firms.
Kerr agreed to close his business after the commissioner ordered him to stop selling the contents of the database on the grounds he had broken data protection laws.
Yesterday, Kerr said he was not operating a "blacklisting" service as he never made any judgments about the individuals and instead left it up to companies to decide whether to employ them.
Thomas launched his investigation last summer after an article in the Guardian about alleged blacklisting in the construction industry. The commissioner intends to order the construction companies to stop buying workers' personal data.
____________________________________________
“Show respect for personal data” warns pre-employment screening company Powerchex
The Information Commissioner’s Office is showing its teeth in a case that may spur far reaching regulation of companies that maintain and sell personal data.
As part of an investigation of the Guardian, The Information Commissioner’s Office closed down an investigating firm that was maintaining and selling data from an illegal database. Buyers of the information, which include some of the biggest construction firms in the UK, will also be prosecuted.
Yesterday David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. "Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied [by the industry]. "The covert system enabled Mr Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees. Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database."
“Companies have often shown a cavalier attitude on how they store, transmit and protect personal data” states Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of pre-employment screening company Powerchex.
“Light sentences from the Information Commissioner, as well as a perceived impression that companies that break the code will not be prosecuted have resulted in a lax treatment of personal data including employee, customer and other such sensitive data.”
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates the UK financial services sector, recently issued a consultation paper to help firms ensure that they treat customer and employee data in a secure fashion.
Examples of good practice in terms of treating personal datas laid out in the report include:
· All customer/employee data to be disposed of securely using shredders or confidential waste bins
· Treating all data as confidential waste to eliminate confusion about which type of bin to use.
· Providing guidance for travelling or home-based staff on the secure disposal of customer data
· Conducting due diligence of data security standards at third-party suppliers before contracts are agreed
· Regular reviews of third party suppliers’ data security systems and controls
· Ensuring tht third-party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate
· The use of secure internet links to transfer data to third parties
“Companies that handle personal data should make sure that third parties who process this data are also compliant with the Data Protection Act” says Kelly, “and of course, everyone must be registered with the Information Commissioner” she concludes.
________________________________________________________
The Guardian that broke the story after investigating reported:
More than 40 major British companies face legal action for allegedly buying secret personal data about thousands of workers they wanted to vet before employing them.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, will today publish a list of the companies he believes may have broken data protection laws, after an investigation by his office that was sparked by fears that many workers were being unfairly "blacklisted".
The commissioner alleges that the firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have, for many years, covertly bought details of workers' trade union activities and their conduct at work.
Thomas believes that workers have been unfairly denied employment because they have had no chance of challenging any inaccurate information, some of which has been stored for decades.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to the claims, many companies refused to comment. Others denied using the data to "blacklist" troublesome workers covertly, or said they had stopped buying the data.
The commissioner has already taken action rapidly to close down a private investigator who is accused of clandestinely compiling an "extensive intelligence database" of 3,000 workers with details that stretch back to the 1980s.
The commissioner is to prosecute the private detective, Ian Kerr, who is accused of selling the information to companies in the construction industry when they wanted to vet potential staff. Thomas said he had seized documents which, he says, show that files on individuals included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward, definite problems, no go", "do not touch", "orchestrated strike action" and "lazy and a trouble-stirrer".
David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied.
The covert system enabled Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information on workers for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees.
"Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database.
"Trading people's personal details in this way is unlawful and we are determined to stamp out this type of activity."
Construction workers have long complained that they have been stopped from getting work because companies were covertly turning away people they believed to be active trade unionists. Hard evidence has, until now, been hard to come by, and the construction industry has always denied it.
Steve Acheson, who believes he has been blacklisted, said he was "absolutely thrilled" by the findings of the commissioner's investigation.
The electrician, 55, from Denton in Manchester, said: "I've been angry for so long. It affects your character and demeanour - it's the fact it's so blatantly unjust. I was disgusted that one man could make a living from denying other men the right to work".
The Labour government has been criticised for passing a law banning the practice of so-called blacklists in 1999, but then, in a U-turn, deciding not to take the final step of implementing the law on the grounds that "there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was occurring". Technically, therefore, "blacklisting" is still legal.
Last night, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said it was prepared to review its position.
"The government is committed to monitoring any evidence that blacklisting is resurfacing in the UK," said a spokesman for the department. However, the information commissioner has powers to take action if he believes data protection laws have been broken.
His officials raided the offices of Kerr, the private investigator, in Droitwich, Worcestershire last week, seizing what the commissioner calls "an intelligence database" of 3,213 individuals.
Thomas said the "comprehensive card index system" held "sensitive" personal data, including details of trade union activity, employment conduct and personal relationships.
He added there was also information about whether the individual "may pose a threat to industrial relations between an employer and its employees". Some information was more than 30 years old, he said.
He has also seized invoices, which he says were issued by Kerr to companies for checking names on his database. He said they showed that the companies had paid Kerr an annual subscription and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted him to run through his database.
The Guardian understands that, in what appears to be a system for centralising records in the construction industry, companies sent information to Kerr so that it could be pooled with other firms.
Kerr agreed to close his business after the commissioner ordered him to stop selling the contents of the database on the grounds he had broken data protection laws.
Yesterday, Kerr said he was not operating a "blacklisting" service as he never made any judgments about the individuals and instead left it up to companies to decide whether to employ them.
Thomas launched his investigation last summer after an article in the Guardian about alleged blacklisting in the construction industry. The commissioner intends to order the construction companies to stop buying workers' personal data.
Friday, 27 February 2009
The importance of conducting Criminal Checks
As the story below demonstrates, financial firms run the risk putting their organisations in financial peril by not conducting basic criminal searches. As a minimum media searches should always be part of a proper screening process, since they will unveil any high profile case that reached the local or national press.
___________________________________________________
TWO Zimbabwean insurance workers based in Sheffield who plundered customers' personal details then used them to scam hundreds of thousands of pounds from policy holders have been jailed for five and-a-half years.
Failed asylum seekers Edward Dzingai, 27, and Gregory Maumbe, 26, both worked at Norwich Union's Pomona House in Pear Street, Ecclesall Road.
They used their positions to gain access to the personal insurance policy details of 28 "gone away" customers - clients for whom the company had no current address - often targeting elderly or vulnerable people.
Ian West, prosecuting, told Sheffield Crown Court: "Dzingai and Maumbe's positions in the organisation gave them access to the computer databases - the names and details of the policy holders and copies of the signatures of these 'gone away' cases.
"They would use this information to manufacture fraudulent surrender letters and the funds would then be transferred to the bank accounts detailed on these letters."
They targeted 28 policies yielding more than £655,395 between September 2005 and October 2007.
They also tried to steal a further £144,000 but failed.
When police raided their homes and examined their computers they found details of another 53 policies worth £1.5 million.
Dzingai, of Windy House Lane, Manor, and Maumbe, of Fretson Road, Manor, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to obtain money transfers by deception.
They claimed they were forced into the scam by men who threatened to hurt their families in Sheffield and Zimbabwe.
Maumbe admitted receiving up to £40,000 for his part in the operation, while Dzingai said he received between £1,500 and £2,000 for five different transactions.
Sentencing them to five years in prison for the deception case, plus an extra six months for possessing fake passports, His Honour Judge Patrick Robertshaw said:"You were actually possessed of freewill and made the choice to play a crucial, critical role in this fraud over a significant period of time.
"The breach of trust involved was serious, flagrant, calculated, deliberate and protracted."
The prosecution claim Allan Manhire, 26, from Liverpool, arranged the bank accounts through which the money was laundered. He faces trial at a later date.
Several other defendants, some of them UK nationals, have admitted opening bank accounts into which the money was laundered.
___________________________________________________
TWO Zimbabwean insurance workers based in Sheffield who plundered customers' personal details then used them to scam hundreds of thousands of pounds from policy holders have been jailed for five and-a-half years.
Failed asylum seekers Edward Dzingai, 27, and Gregory Maumbe, 26, both worked at Norwich Union's Pomona House in Pear Street, Ecclesall Road.
They used their positions to gain access to the personal insurance policy details of 28 "gone away" customers - clients for whom the company had no current address - often targeting elderly or vulnerable people.
Ian West, prosecuting, told Sheffield Crown Court: "Dzingai and Maumbe's positions in the organisation gave them access to the computer databases - the names and details of the policy holders and copies of the signatures of these 'gone away' cases.
"They would use this information to manufacture fraudulent surrender letters and the funds would then be transferred to the bank accounts detailed on these letters."
They targeted 28 policies yielding more than £655,395 between September 2005 and October 2007.
They also tried to steal a further £144,000 but failed.
When police raided their homes and examined their computers they found details of another 53 policies worth £1.5 million.
Dzingai, of Windy House Lane, Manor, and Maumbe, of Fretson Road, Manor, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to obtain money transfers by deception.
They claimed they were forced into the scam by men who threatened to hurt their families in Sheffield and Zimbabwe.
Maumbe admitted receiving up to £40,000 for his part in the operation, while Dzingai said he received between £1,500 and £2,000 for five different transactions.
Sentencing them to five years in prison for the deception case, plus an extra six months for possessing fake passports, His Honour Judge Patrick Robertshaw said:"You were actually possessed of freewill and made the choice to play a crucial, critical role in this fraud over a significant period of time.
"The breach of trust involved was serious, flagrant, calculated, deliberate and protracted."
The prosecution claim Allan Manhire, 26, from Liverpool, arranged the bank accounts through which the money was laundered. He faces trial at a later date.
Several other defendants, some of them UK nationals, have admitted opening bank accounts into which the money was laundered.
Facebook posting can get you fired
As reported in the Times today an employee was fired as a result of a posting on Facebook. This raises interesting ethical and legal questions both in terms of checking social networking sites for employment purposes as well as in controlling what employees can say with impunity about their employer in what is essentially a form of media.
At Powerchex we do not formally check social networking sites for pre-employment screening purposes, however, we do recommend that recruiters take a look at what the applicant may have posted on Facebook and other similar sites.
__________________________________________________________
A 16-year-old girl from Essex was fired after she described her office job as "boring" on her Facebook page.
Kimberley Swann, 16, of Clacton, had been working at Ivell Marketing & Logistics, in Clacton, for three weeks before being fired on Monday.
"I think they've stooped quite low," she said.
The firm's Steve Ivell said of the decision: "Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable."
Miss Swann said: "You shouldn't really be hassled outside work. It was only a throw-away comment.
She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it
Janette Swann
"I came home from work one day, sat on the computer and said something about my job being boring."
Details were passed to her employers after she allowed colleagues access to her page, Miss Swann said, adding that she was not given the chance to explain.
Her mother, Janette, 41, said: "I think she's been treated totally unfairly. She didn't mention the company's name.
"This is a 16-year-old child we're talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it."
Mr Ivell said: "Ivell Marketing is a small, close-knit family company and it is very important that all the staff work together in harmony.
"Had Miss Swann put up a poster on the staff notice board making the same comments and invited other staff to read it there would have been the same result."
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said employers needed "thicker skins" in relation to social networking websites.
He said: "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends."
At Powerchex we do not formally check social networking sites for pre-employment screening purposes, however, we do recommend that recruiters take a look at what the applicant may have posted on Facebook and other similar sites.
__________________________________________________________
A 16-year-old girl from Essex was fired after she described her office job as "boring" on her Facebook page.
Kimberley Swann, 16, of Clacton, had been working at Ivell Marketing & Logistics, in Clacton, for three weeks before being fired on Monday.
"I think they've stooped quite low," she said.
The firm's Steve Ivell said of the decision: "Her display of disrespect and dissatisfaction undermined the relationship and made it untenable."
Miss Swann said: "You shouldn't really be hassled outside work. It was only a throw-away comment.
She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it
Janette Swann
"I came home from work one day, sat on the computer and said something about my job being boring."
Details were passed to her employers after she allowed colleagues access to her page, Miss Swann said, adding that she was not given the chance to explain.
Her mother, Janette, 41, said: "I think she's been treated totally unfairly. She didn't mention the company's name.
"This is a 16-year-old child we're talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it."
Mr Ivell said: "Ivell Marketing is a small, close-knit family company and it is very important that all the staff work together in harmony.
"Had Miss Swann put up a poster on the staff notice board making the same comments and invited other staff to read it there would have been the same result."
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said employers needed "thicker skins" in relation to social networking websites.
He said: "Most employers wouldn't dream of following their staff down the pub to see if they were sounding off about work to their friends."
Departing workers often steal data from ex-employers: study
A study by Ponemon Institute reveals that more than half of departing employees steal data from their ex-employers. Other than the obvious implications raised concerning the data security policy or lack there of, at the site of the ex-employer, one needs to consider the fact that these employees must be quite confident that their ex-employer will not disclose this sort of information to the new employer. Given the percentage of dishonestly involved, new employers are well advised to probe into these sort of issues during the referencing process.
________________________________________________________________
Many ex-employees in the U.S. are walking off with companies' sensitive and confidential data when they leave their jobs, a new study has found.
And of those, most have either used or plan to use the data for their next job with another company.
"Not only is this putting customer and other confidential information at risk for a data breach, but it could affect companies' competitiveness and future revenues," said the study released Monday by the Ponemon Institute, a Michigan-based independent think-tank that researches information and privacy management practices in business and government.
Among 945 survey participants who had been laid off, fired, or changed jobs in the past year, 59 per cent admitted to taking company data with them, said the study, which as sponsored by Symantec Corp., the internet security company that makes Norton Antivirus.
Of those:
65 per cent took email lists.
45 per cent took non-financial business information.
39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
35 per cent took employee records.
16 per cent took financial information.
About 61 per cent took the data as paper documents or hard files, 53 per cent burned the information onto a CD or DVD, and 42 per cent downloaded it onto a USB memory stick.
When asked if their former company permitted them to keep the information, 79 per cent admitted that the company did not.
The study's results suggested that the stolen information was valuable to competitors — 67 per cent of the ex-employees said they used confidential, sensitive or proprietary information from their ex-employer to help secure a new job, and 68 per cent said they planned to make use of the data.
Companies share blame
The study's author suggested that companies aren't doing enough to stop the thefts:
Only 15 per cent of companies in the survey conducted a review or audit of the paper and electronic documents taken by employees.
92 per cent of employees took CDs, DVDs, USB memory sticks and PDAs with them when they left, and 89 per cent reported that the company did not do an electronic scan of the devices.
24 per cent of employees were able to access their former employer's computer system or network after their departure and 44 per cent continued to receive email on the company's account.
"Even if layoffs are not imminent, companies need to be more aware of who has access to sensitive business information," said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, in a statement. "Our research suggests that a great deal of data loss is preventable through the use of clear policies, better communication with employees, and adequate controls on data access."
Dissatisfied employees more likely to steal
The study found that only 13 per cent of respondents who had a favourable view of their former employer kept some of the company's information, while more than 61 per cent with an unfavourable view took the data.
When employees who took the data were asked why it was acceptable to do so:
54 per cent said other employees kept the information when they left the company.
50 per cent said no one checked their belongings when they left.
11 per cent said their former supervisor said it was permissible to keep the information.
________________________________________________________________
Many ex-employees in the U.S. are walking off with companies' sensitive and confidential data when they leave their jobs, a new study has found.
And of those, most have either used or plan to use the data for their next job with another company.
"Not only is this putting customer and other confidential information at risk for a data breach, but it could affect companies' competitiveness and future revenues," said the study released Monday by the Ponemon Institute, a Michigan-based independent think-tank that researches information and privacy management practices in business and government.
Among 945 survey participants who had been laid off, fired, or changed jobs in the past year, 59 per cent admitted to taking company data with them, said the study, which as sponsored by Symantec Corp., the internet security company that makes Norton Antivirus.
Of those:
65 per cent took email lists.
45 per cent took non-financial business information.
39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
35 per cent took employee records.
16 per cent took financial information.
About 61 per cent took the data as paper documents or hard files, 53 per cent burned the information onto a CD or DVD, and 42 per cent downloaded it onto a USB memory stick.
When asked if their former company permitted them to keep the information, 79 per cent admitted that the company did not.
The study's results suggested that the stolen information was valuable to competitors — 67 per cent of the ex-employees said they used confidential, sensitive or proprietary information from their ex-employer to help secure a new job, and 68 per cent said they planned to make use of the data.
Companies share blame
The study's author suggested that companies aren't doing enough to stop the thefts:
Only 15 per cent of companies in the survey conducted a review or audit of the paper and electronic documents taken by employees.
92 per cent of employees took CDs, DVDs, USB memory sticks and PDAs with them when they left, and 89 per cent reported that the company did not do an electronic scan of the devices.
24 per cent of employees were able to access their former employer's computer system or network after their departure and 44 per cent continued to receive email on the company's account.
"Even if layoffs are not imminent, companies need to be more aware of who has access to sensitive business information," said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, in a statement. "Our research suggests that a great deal of data loss is preventable through the use of clear policies, better communication with employees, and adequate controls on data access."
Dissatisfied employees more likely to steal
The study found that only 13 per cent of respondents who had a favourable view of their former employer kept some of the company's information, while more than 61 per cent with an unfavourable view took the data.
When employees who took the data were asked why it was acceptable to do so:
54 per cent said other employees kept the information when they left the company.
50 per cent said no one checked their belongings when they left.
11 per cent said their former supervisor said it was permissible to keep the information.
One if four have lied at interview
Recruiter magazine reveals in their weekly update a startling statistic:
___________________________________________________________
Around a quarter of British workers have lied at interview, according to a Monster poll.
According to the poll, 28% of workers admitted lying in a job interview, with a further 14% stretching the truth in the hope of appearing better qualified for a job. However, most people have remained honest, with 58% of those surveyed claiming that they have never lied or been economical with the truth to secure a job.
Julian Acquari, managing director at Monster UK and Ireland, says: “Today’s tough job market understandably heightens the temptation for jobseekers to lie in interviews. Competition is fierce and we are aware of the increased need to stand out.
“However, there is a fine line between embellishing facts about yourself and telling lies. It is never advisable to bend the truth under any circumstances as it is likely to catch up with you. At the end of the day honesty is always the best policy.”
___________________________________________________________
Around a quarter of British workers have lied at interview, according to a Monster poll.
According to the poll, 28% of workers admitted lying in a job interview, with a further 14% stretching the truth in the hope of appearing better qualified for a job. However, most people have remained honest, with 58% of those surveyed claiming that they have never lied or been economical with the truth to secure a job.
Julian Acquari, managing director at Monster UK and Ireland, says: “Today’s tough job market understandably heightens the temptation for jobseekers to lie in interviews. Competition is fierce and we are aware of the increased need to stand out.
“However, there is a fine line between embellishing facts about yourself and telling lies. It is never advisable to bend the truth under any circumstances as it is likely to catch up with you. At the end of the day honesty is always the best policy.”
Increase in IT contractors' offers in Financial Services
Powerchex's own research of the number of offers make in the month of January as they compare to the month of December 2008, show a significant increase in offers primarily in investment banking. IT contractors' offers have also increased substantially. Contractor UK a leading industry website reports our findings as follows:
_______________________________________________________
Recruitment of IT contractors by British financers has beaten all stated expectations, halting a consecutive monthly decline in the number of IT freelancers that they hire.Financial staff screening firm Powerchex said IT contractor job offers in January rose by almost 30% compared with December, when they went into the red by 75%.Yet the number of IT contractors the firm screened last month was down 68% on the same period in 2008, suggesting City IT hires are “definitely not back to normal.” Reflecting on January’s upturn, Powerchex’s founder Alexandra Kelly told CUK it may be that financers think that they shed too many IT contractors in December. Then, the number of IT contractor job offers was “dismal, so much so that investment bankers, stockbrokers, insurers and hedge fund managers were all likelier recruits.Now, however, some hiring freezes have melted, projects are being looked at afresh and related staff are being seen as vital for “competitive advantage,” Ms Kelly said. Financial services companies taking this approach with IT contractors in January were mainly serving the investment banking and insurance sectors.“There do seem to be signs of some increased hiring for contractors in the financial services space,” testified Paul Elworthy, financial IT recruitment director at Hudson.“But I would loathe to refer to it as a recovery quite yet. January is usually the beginning of the new budgets so there is a little more freedom to hire so the change from December to January can be quite a positive one. “I would put it down to a seasonal trend but that said, we are seeing more positivity from a number of our clients in their hiring, particularly for IT contractors”.Hudson said 70% of candidates it placed last month were freelance, with demand strongest for Subject Matter Experts in specific technologies, product lines or disciplines.
_______________________________________________________
Recruitment of IT contractors by British financers has beaten all stated expectations, halting a consecutive monthly decline in the number of IT freelancers that they hire.Financial staff screening firm Powerchex said IT contractor job offers in January rose by almost 30% compared with December, when they went into the red by 75%.Yet the number of IT contractors the firm screened last month was down 68% on the same period in 2008, suggesting City IT hires are “definitely not back to normal.” Reflecting on January’s upturn, Powerchex’s founder Alexandra Kelly told CUK it may be that financers think that they shed too many IT contractors in December. Then, the number of IT contractor job offers was “dismal, so much so that investment bankers, stockbrokers, insurers and hedge fund managers were all likelier recruits.Now, however, some hiring freezes have melted, projects are being looked at afresh and related staff are being seen as vital for “competitive advantage,” Ms Kelly said. Financial services companies taking this approach with IT contractors in January were mainly serving the investment banking and insurance sectors.“There do seem to be signs of some increased hiring for contractors in the financial services space,” testified Paul Elworthy, financial IT recruitment director at Hudson.“But I would loathe to refer to it as a recovery quite yet. January is usually the beginning of the new budgets so there is a little more freedom to hire so the change from December to January can be quite a positive one. “I would put it down to a seasonal trend but that said, we are seeing more positivity from a number of our clients in their hiring, particularly for IT contractors”.Hudson said 70% of candidates it placed last month were freelance, with demand strongest for Subject Matter Experts in specific technologies, product lines or disciplines.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Regulators within EU countries
This is a link to all the financial regulators in the European Union. These records are kept at the country level and regulation can still vary even within the EU. Keeping in touch with local regulators and incorporating their directives has been at the cornerstone of our screening process.
http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=773&a=9912
On the JMLSG website, there are other resources outlining the ML regulations and how they can affect the requirements of firms in terms of screening current and future employees.
http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=773&a=9912
On the JMLSG website, there are other resources outlining the ML regulations and how they can affect the requirements of firms in terms of screening current and future employees.
A flood of fake CVs for IT jobs
According to The Times of India fake CVs and qualifications are flooding the Indian IT market. This trend represents a real danger to companies outsourcing IT development to India on more than one front. There is the obvious risk that the person may have a false or stolen identity and could be working on behalf of organised crime. A further risk is that the employee is not qualified for the role they will be doing and can cause serious damage to the IT infrastracture of the client. Companies are advised to not let their guards down when outsourcing any part of their work whether it is in the UK or internationally. Auditing the screening arrangements of a supplier is basic risk mitigation.
________________________________________________________________
BANGALORE: Not content with faking passports, visas and CVs, expert forgers are also meeting the needs of dubious IT aspirants. moolah by selling fake access and identity cards, appointment letters, pay revision letters, bank statements
Agents across the country are raking in the , and even relieving letters of companies and banks. A fortnight ago, Wipro Technologies interviewed a candidate who walked into its MG Road office with a whole bunch of fake documents, including an interview call letter from Wipro. Its HR staff smelt a rat and on interrogation, they uncovered the true extent of the candidate’s duplicity. Wipro let the Andhra Pradesh-based fraudster go after obtaining a written apology, in which he wrote, “I went to a shopping mall in Bangalore. There I met a job consultant. I paid him Rs 3,000 and in turn he got me fake certificates, ID card, offer letter, letter of salary hike, pay slips and bank statements. With these, I applied for a techie’s job in Wipro." An e-mail interview call letter received by another candidate had the following details: "Dear candidate, your resume is found on TimesJobs.com and you have been selected for the job you sought for. Your interview will be held on February 10 at Wipro’s Noida office. You have to come with photo copies of all required documents. First you have to deposit Rs 5,300 in any branch of a bank (name withheld) in the account number XXX in favour of Sr HRD. This money along with your travel allowance and DA will be refunded by the company on the day of the interview." Wipro has taken a serious view of the matter and even shared some cases with its peers. “It’s a serious menace growing in alarming proportions. We have given special training to our talent acquisition team to be extremely cautious of such questionable elements trying to creep into the system. We are talking to ten of our peers so that together we can find ways to fight the menace. The idea is to create a pool of fake CVs and share them between us so that we are insulated. This will also create awareness in the market," said Pradeep Bahirwani, vice-president, talent acquisition
, Wipro Technologies. According to Bahirwani, candidates from secondary cities easily fall prey to these "agents". According to a recent KPMG report, one of every four CVs in the Indian tech space is fake. Also, six of every ten fake CVs have a direct or indirect link to Hyderabad.
The Times of India
________________________________________________________________
BANGALORE: Not content with faking passports, visas and CVs, expert forgers are also meeting the needs of dubious IT aspirants. moolah by selling fake access and identity cards, appointment letters, pay revision letters, bank statements
Agents across the country are raking in the , and even relieving letters of companies and banks. A fortnight ago, Wipro Technologies interviewed a candidate who walked into its MG Road office with a whole bunch of fake documents, including an interview call letter from Wipro. Its HR staff smelt a rat and on interrogation, they uncovered the true extent of the candidate’s duplicity. Wipro let the Andhra Pradesh-based fraudster go after obtaining a written apology, in which he wrote, “I went to a shopping mall in Bangalore. There I met a job consultant. I paid him Rs 3,000 and in turn he got me fake certificates, ID card, offer letter, letter of salary hike, pay slips and bank statements. With these, I applied for a techie’s job in Wipro." An e-mail interview call letter received by another candidate had the following details: "Dear candidate, your resume is found on TimesJobs.com and you have been selected for the job you sought for. Your interview will be held on February 10 at Wipro’s Noida office. You have to come with photo copies of all required documents. First you have to deposit Rs 5,300 in any branch of a bank (name withheld) in the account number XXX in favour of Sr HRD. This money along with your travel allowance and DA will be refunded by the company on the day of the interview." Wipro has taken a serious view of the matter and even shared some cases with its peers. “It’s a serious menace growing in alarming proportions. We have given special training to our talent acquisition team to be extremely cautious of such questionable elements trying to creep into the system. We are talking to ten of our peers so that together we can find ways to fight the menace. The idea is to create a pool of fake CVs and share them between us so that we are insulated. This will also create awareness in the market," said Pradeep Bahirwani, vice-president, talent acquisition
, Wipro Technologies. According to Bahirwani, candidates from secondary cities easily fall prey to these "agents". According to a recent KPMG report, one of every four CVs in the Indian tech space is fake. Also, six of every ten fake CVs have a direct or indirect link to Hyderabad.
The Times of India
Monday, 2 February 2009
Companies should be very vigilant in screening their employees as fraud nears record levels
As the global economic downturn takes hold it is very likely that more fraud will come to light. Tightening economic conditions are likely to both reveal existing frauds, or act as an determinant for new frauds. Companies are urged to screen new employees carefully and not neglect to periodically re-screen employees in high risk functions.
____________________________________________________
The BBC On Line reports:
While fraud by professional gangs remained pretty constant, fraud by individuals increased dramatically.
Individual cases of fraud accounted for around £300m, a three-fold increase on 2007.
Professional gangs accounted for £806m.
The financial services sector suffered from £388m of alleged fraud - a 10-fold increase on 2007. However, £220m of this total was accounted for by an alleged £220m attempt to hack into Sumitomo Matsui Banking Corporation's systems.
Companies were badly hit, with a five-fold increase in fraud, up from £24m worth of cases in 2007 to £125m last year.
"Internal frauds are becoming more prevalent and should set alarm bells ringing within organisations. In difficult times, they could even become the tipping point between the survival and demise of an organisation," said Mr Patel.
____________________________________________________
The BBC On Line reports:
While fraud by professional gangs remained pretty constant, fraud by individuals increased dramatically.
Individual cases of fraud accounted for around £300m, a three-fold increase on 2007.
Professional gangs accounted for £806m.
The financial services sector suffered from £388m of alleged fraud - a 10-fold increase on 2007. However, £220m of this total was accounted for by an alleged £220m attempt to hack into Sumitomo Matsui Banking Corporation's systems.
Companies were badly hit, with a five-fold increase in fraud, up from £24m worth of cases in 2007 to £125m last year.
"Internal frauds are becoming more prevalent and should set alarm bells ringing within organisations. In difficult times, they could even become the tipping point between the survival and demise of an organisation," said Mr Patel.
India tightens pre-employment screening practices after Mumbai attacks
Many stories of lax pre-employment screening have be reported out of India. The attacks in Mumbai are finally making companies and authorities, look close at their vetting processes as reported in the Hindu Business Line below:
_______________________________________________________
Shaken by the magnitude of the terror that struck the two hotels in Mumbai, companies across industries would step up employee verification procedures, especially for contract employees and those employed in ‘sensitive positions’ such as security staff, hospitality and airlines frontline staff and telecom employees.
Mr Rajesh A R, Vice-President of staffing solutions company TeamLease Services says that for ‘sensitive positions,’ there is likely to be additional verifications like checking permanent addresses, apart from routine education and previous employment checking.
“Before the Mumbai incident, companies did not feel the need to spend the money on additional checks such as these, especially for employees whose salaries were about Rs 4,000-Rs 5,000/ month.” Companies will therefore prefer to employ people who come with third party verification. “Candidates who have got themselves verified would stand a better chance of being employed,” he feels.
Very soon, he believes, this would also become mandatory for temp (contract) employees in the hospitality, airline, BFSI, retail and telecom sectors.
Col Vijay Reddy, Director of Footprints, a background screening firm, says that he has been recommending permanent residence verification of employees to all his clients, especially for contract staff in security agencies and the hospitality sectors.
“Now, they realise that people from the neighbouring region can easily pass off for Indians unless verified for permanent residency and that also by an independent agency.”Police verification
The hospitality sector, meanwhile, says the industry has been going through the usual procedure of identity checks. According to Ms Harinder Singh, General Manager, The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore, the hotel does go through the proper process of verifying for some positions. “We make sure there is police verification and identity checks too,” she says.
Mr Subrata Majumder, General Manager, The Park, Bangalore, says, “We make sure we demand police verification for various positions. We check documents, but how genuine they are is definitely a concern.”
In the meantime Aislinn Simpson of the Telegraph reports...
Indian call centre manager arrested over British insurance scam
The manager of an Indian call centre handling the insurance details of hundreds of British customers has been arrested over fears of a major scam, according to police.
According to the police, Edward Burns, an Indian citizen, was working in the insurance claims division of Delhi-based EXL, which handled British insurance firm Aviva, the parent company of Norwich Union.
The 30-year-old is feared to have been using identities of British insurance customers to make false claims for up to two years.
He has admitted siphoning off nearly £57,000 to bank accounts in Britain but this is only in relation to 12 customers and police believe the scam could be much larger.
They also fear that other British firms who hold accounts with EXL may have been affected.
The local head of police, Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, said police also plan to interrogate three people thought to be accomplices of Mr Burns in Britain.
He said: "As this has been going on for two years, we suspect a much bigger financial fraud to British customers."
It is not yet clear how Mr Burns is alleged to have perpetrated the fraud, but it is understood that police believe his accomplices in Britain would collect the insurance payout and take a cut out to him in India.
EXL Service has played down the scale of the alleged scam, saying it was a "small-scale isolated incident".
A spokesman for Aviva said: "We can confirm that, through our own control mechanisms, we have discovered an isolated case of fraud by an employee of one of our supplier partners. We are currently working with the local authorities to take the appropriate action. At no time was any policy holders' money at risk."
_______________________________________________________
Shaken by the magnitude of the terror that struck the two hotels in Mumbai, companies across industries would step up employee verification procedures, especially for contract employees and those employed in ‘sensitive positions’ such as security staff, hospitality and airlines frontline staff and telecom employees.
Mr Rajesh A R, Vice-President of staffing solutions company TeamLease Services says that for ‘sensitive positions,’ there is likely to be additional verifications like checking permanent addresses, apart from routine education and previous employment checking.
“Before the Mumbai incident, companies did not feel the need to spend the money on additional checks such as these, especially for employees whose salaries were about Rs 4,000-Rs 5,000/ month.” Companies will therefore prefer to employ people who come with third party verification. “Candidates who have got themselves verified would stand a better chance of being employed,” he feels.
Very soon, he believes, this would also become mandatory for temp (contract) employees in the hospitality, airline, BFSI, retail and telecom sectors.
Col Vijay Reddy, Director of Footprints, a background screening firm, says that he has been recommending permanent residence verification of employees to all his clients, especially for contract staff in security agencies and the hospitality sectors.
“Now, they realise that people from the neighbouring region can easily pass off for Indians unless verified for permanent residency and that also by an independent agency.”Police verification
The hospitality sector, meanwhile, says the industry has been going through the usual procedure of identity checks. According to Ms Harinder Singh, General Manager, The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore, the hotel does go through the proper process of verifying for some positions. “We make sure there is police verification and identity checks too,” she says.
Mr Subrata Majumder, General Manager, The Park, Bangalore, says, “We make sure we demand police verification for various positions. We check documents, but how genuine they are is definitely a concern.”
In the meantime Aislinn Simpson of the Telegraph reports...
Indian call centre manager arrested over British insurance scam
The manager of an Indian call centre handling the insurance details of hundreds of British customers has been arrested over fears of a major scam, according to police.
According to the police, Edward Burns, an Indian citizen, was working in the insurance claims division of Delhi-based EXL, which handled British insurance firm Aviva, the parent company of Norwich Union.
The 30-year-old is feared to have been using identities of British insurance customers to make false claims for up to two years.
He has admitted siphoning off nearly £57,000 to bank accounts in Britain but this is only in relation to 12 customers and police believe the scam could be much larger.
They also fear that other British firms who hold accounts with EXL may have been affected.
The local head of police, Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, said police also plan to interrogate three people thought to be accomplices of Mr Burns in Britain.
He said: "As this has been going on for two years, we suspect a much bigger financial fraud to British customers."
It is not yet clear how Mr Burns is alleged to have perpetrated the fraud, but it is understood that police believe his accomplices in Britain would collect the insurance payout and take a cut out to him in India.
EXL Service has played down the scale of the alleged scam, saying it was a "small-scale isolated incident".
A spokesman for Aviva said: "We can confirm that, through our own control mechanisms, we have discovered an isolated case of fraud by an employee of one of our supplier partners. We are currently working with the local authorities to take the appropriate action. At no time was any policy holders' money at risk."
A tale of two references...
This week brought two interesting stories about referencing. Two companies, one in the US, the other in Australia, reacted quite differently to adverse referencing. What would you do?
First, Microsemi as reported in the FT by Richard Waters
In spite of the new spirit of puritanism sweeping through US boardrooms, some chief executives are still being forgiven an occasional lapse into dishonesty.
That was the stance taken this week by directors of Microsemi, a small Californian technology company, after it was revealed that the company's chief executive had been less than forthright about his educational qualifications.
Rather than showing Jim Peterson the door - the fate that has often befallen other chief executives who have lied about their credentials - Microsemi's directors have decided that he should stay on, although with financial penalties that could cost him $1m.
News of the board's leniency drew a mixed reaction. "It's one data point about a person, about their willingness to falsify a record in a tight spot," said Wayne Norman, professor of ethics and philosophy at Duke University.
He added, though, that the company's directors were right to take a broader view of Mr Peterson's conduct over a number of years, and to consider the impact on shareholders of making a leadership change.
Justifying the decision not to jettison the chief executive after his nine years at the helm, Dennis Leibel, chairman, said: "The board's mission is to protect shareholder interests by balancing the results of the independent inquiry against the great value and strategic vision that Jim Peterson has created at Microsemi." He credited the chief executive with building a "highly successful and profitable enterprise".
Complicating the case was the fact that the disclosure about Mr Peterson's false credentials was made by Barry Minkow, a short-seller who has a track record of profiting by uncovering such irregularities.
The work of short-sellers in ferreting out discrepancies like this probably helped in the longer term to keep chief executives honest, said Mr Norman.
In a regulatory filing, Microsemi said that an investigation by law firm Munger Tolles & Olson had concluded that Mr Peterson did not have a bachelor's degree and MBA from Brigham Young University, as he had claimed.
Instead, he had been awarded an associate's degree by a college that later became part of Brigham Young, and had also earned "substantial credits" towards a bachelor's degree at the university.
Microsemi said it would impose financial penalties on Mr Peterson, while also introducing a heightened level of scrutiny that would involve deeper background checks into its senior executives.
While adding that the company "takes this matter very seriously", Mr Leibel stopped short of criticising the chief executive's dishonesty directly and said the company's directors "are not commenting on his beliefs, understandings or state of mind".
Meanwhile, in Australia...
A COMPANY has won more than $160,000 compensation from a recruitment firm that recommended a manager who was a former bankrupt and fraud.
The firm failed to conduct adequate background checks on the sales manager, who subsequently defrauded the company of $120,000.
Sydney water treatment equipment supplier Wedeco hired Driver Recruitment, trading as Authorised Solutions, to find sales manager for Southeast Asia, reports The Australian.
According to a NSW Court of Appeal judgment, the successful candidate, Stephen Riddell, worked for Wedeco for 18 months before it was discovered that his qualifications were false.
Wedeco found Riddell was an undischarged bankrupt and that "in his business activities he had engaged in fraudulent practices''.
Wedeco sought damages for breach of contract and for negligence and recovery of loss suffered.
The court heard that when the recruiter put forward Mr Riddell for the job, his CV said he had been employed as an area manager with another company, Tyco, for the past two years
In reality, Mr Riddell had stopped working for Tyco 5 months earlier.
Two Tyco employees nominated by Mr Riddell as referees said that when asked for a reference, they told the recruiter he no longer worked for the company and they could not speak about his work performance.
His former supervisor said that had the recruiter contacted him, he would have said Mr Riddell had had two warnings and that he was in the process of recommending his sacking when Riddell resigned.
The court found the recruitment firm breached its contract with Wedeco and its duty of care because the company failed to speak to the two referees.
It was ordered to pay $164,224 to Wedeco.
First, Microsemi as reported in the FT by Richard Waters
In spite of the new spirit of puritanism sweeping through US boardrooms, some chief executives are still being forgiven an occasional lapse into dishonesty.
That was the stance taken this week by directors of Microsemi, a small Californian technology company, after it was revealed that the company's chief executive had been less than forthright about his educational qualifications.
Rather than showing Jim Peterson the door - the fate that has often befallen other chief executives who have lied about their credentials - Microsemi's directors have decided that he should stay on, although with financial penalties that could cost him $1m.
News of the board's leniency drew a mixed reaction. "It's one data point about a person, about their willingness to falsify a record in a tight spot," said Wayne Norman, professor of ethics and philosophy at Duke University.
He added, though, that the company's directors were right to take a broader view of Mr Peterson's conduct over a number of years, and to consider the impact on shareholders of making a leadership change.
Justifying the decision not to jettison the chief executive after his nine years at the helm, Dennis Leibel, chairman, said: "The board's mission is to protect shareholder interests by balancing the results of the independent inquiry against the great value and strategic vision that Jim Peterson has created at Microsemi." He credited the chief executive with building a "highly successful and profitable enterprise".
Complicating the case was the fact that the disclosure about Mr Peterson's false credentials was made by Barry Minkow, a short-seller who has a track record of profiting by uncovering such irregularities.
The work of short-sellers in ferreting out discrepancies like this probably helped in the longer term to keep chief executives honest, said Mr Norman.
In a regulatory filing, Microsemi said that an investigation by law firm Munger Tolles & Olson had concluded that Mr Peterson did not have a bachelor's degree and MBA from Brigham Young University, as he had claimed.
Instead, he had been awarded an associate's degree by a college that later became part of Brigham Young, and had also earned "substantial credits" towards a bachelor's degree at the university.
Microsemi said it would impose financial penalties on Mr Peterson, while also introducing a heightened level of scrutiny that would involve deeper background checks into its senior executives.
While adding that the company "takes this matter very seriously", Mr Leibel stopped short of criticising the chief executive's dishonesty directly and said the company's directors "are not commenting on his beliefs, understandings or state of mind".
Meanwhile, in Australia...
A COMPANY has won more than $160,000 compensation from a recruitment firm that recommended a manager who was a former bankrupt and fraud.
The firm failed to conduct adequate background checks on the sales manager, who subsequently defrauded the company of $120,000.
Sydney water treatment equipment supplier Wedeco hired Driver Recruitment, trading as Authorised Solutions, to find sales manager for Southeast Asia, reports The Australian.
According to a NSW Court of Appeal judgment, the successful candidate, Stephen Riddell, worked for Wedeco for 18 months before it was discovered that his qualifications were false.
Wedeco found Riddell was an undischarged bankrupt and that "in his business activities he had engaged in fraudulent practices''.
Wedeco sought damages for breach of contract and for negligence and recovery of loss suffered.
The court heard that when the recruiter put forward Mr Riddell for the job, his CV said he had been employed as an area manager with another company, Tyco, for the past two years
In reality, Mr Riddell had stopped working for Tyco 5 months earlier.
Two Tyco employees nominated by Mr Riddell as referees said that when asked for a reference, they told the recruiter he no longer worked for the company and they could not speak about his work performance.
His former supervisor said that had the recruiter contacted him, he would have said Mr Riddell had had two warnings and that he was in the process of recommending his sacking when Riddell resigned.
The court found the recruitment firm breached its contract with Wedeco and its duty of care because the company failed to speak to the two referees.
It was ordered to pay $164,224 to Wedeco.
Friday, 23 January 2009
The Right Fit
Companies which rely on finding out just how good their new recruits are once they are in the job could be putting their finances and reputation at risk. This is the key message in a new guide produced by recruitment communications and candidate assessment experts, TMP Worldwide.In its latest White Paper ‘The Right Fit: Reducing the Risk of Recruitment’, TMP provides organisations with a guide to measuring the value of potential employees before they are in position.TMP Worldwide, Chief Executive, Andrew Wilkinson who launched the White paper at the HR Business Directors Summit held at the ICC in Birmingham on the 21st and 22nd January (http://www.hrevent.com/), says finding the ‘right fit’ means being clear about which behaviours lead to effective performance for your organisation. These need to be measured against the specific requirements of the job i.e. job competencies and should be linked to how organisations attract candidates via their employer brand.“Now, more than ever, expensive mistakes in recruiting the wrong people cannot afford to be made. Companies need to make sure they are attracting and retaining people who will add maximum value rather than just fill vacancies,” said Wilkinson.He suggests that the following four step approach will eradicate risky recruitment based on gut instinct.1. Understand the behaviours that lead to better performance which should be documented in an organisational competency model2. Attract the right people through defining and communicating an honest and compelling employer brand3. Create a ‘fit for purpose’ recruitment process4. Engage with candidates in their journey to becoming employees through a seamless on boarding programme.The White Paper takes business leader and recruiters through defining, creating and communicating an organisational competency model.According to TMP’s Wilkinson, Employer Brand is also key in establishing the differentiator that makes a company stand out from it competitors. “Having an effectively managed employer brand can improve engagement levels by up to 30% and increase the size of the labour pool by around 50%,” he said.When it comes to finding the ‘right fit’ Wilkinson recommends that companies start by identifying the behaviours and characteristics of high performing individuals to understand ‘what great looks like’. Once this is in place recruiters can use a number of tools from competency-based interviews, competency-sifting questionnaires and tailored assessment centre exercises to detect a candidate’s suitability for a role, says Wilkinson.Through the AMEC Nuclear case study within the White Paper, recruiters can see how TMP helped the company to create a competency framework which its HR and Capability Director says will differentiate AMEC Nuclear and drive the business forward.“Organisations will see immediate value and reduced recruitment risk from our ‘right fit’ approach which will identify the right people with the right behaviours for the company’s culture and vision,” concluded Wilkinson.‘The Right Fit: Reducing the Risk of Recruitment’ is available via email. Please contact Amy Johnson at amy.johnson@tmpw.co.uk
____________________________________
Finding the right fit with a new recruit is truly the "Holy Grail" in resourcing. Time and again we interview line managers who give every indication that an applicant would not be the right fit for the organisation they are joining. Subsequent research proves that indeed the longevity of the employee is short and the performance leaves a lot to be desired. The skills and abilities may be there, but further assessment is imperative when making the recruitment decision. At Powerchex we talk to referees and this helps us communicate to the resourcing team our observations on the fit of the applicant. It is quite often that an offer is retracted based on this criteria. Now that the labour market is a bit looser, I would recommend to companies to take the time and effort to establish the right fit when making their decision.
____________________________________
Finding the right fit with a new recruit is truly the "Holy Grail" in resourcing. Time and again we interview line managers who give every indication that an applicant would not be the right fit for the organisation they are joining. Subsequent research proves that indeed the longevity of the employee is short and the performance leaves a lot to be desired. The skills and abilities may be there, but further assessment is imperative when making the recruitment decision. At Powerchex we talk to referees and this helps us communicate to the resourcing team our observations on the fit of the applicant. It is quite often that an offer is retracted based on this criteria. Now that the labour market is a bit looser, I would recommend to companies to take the time and effort to establish the right fit when making their decision.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Checking Suppliers is Good Corporate Governance
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Aon Limited (Aon Ltd) £5.25 million for failing to take reasonable care to establish and maintain effective systems and controls to counter the risks of bribery and corruption associated with making payments to overseas firms and individuals.
According to the report published today by the FSA, between 14 January 2005 and 30 September 2007, “Aon Ltd failed to properly assess the risks involved in its dealings with overseas firms and individuals who helped it win business and failed to implement effective controls to mitigate those risks. As a result of Aon Ltd’s weak control environment, the firm made various suspicious payments, amounting to approximately US$7 million, to a number of overseas firms and individuals. “
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement, said: “This is the largest financial crime related fine imposed by the FSA to date. It sends a clear message to the UK financial services industry that it is completely unacceptable for firms to conduct business overseas without having in place appropriate anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls.”
In April 2008 the FSA published its paper on Data Security where it states that firms should conduct due diligence on third party suppliers including ensuring third party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate.
__________________________________________________
It is not unusual for companies with robust employee vetting programmes to neglect to apply the same standards to the third parties they deal with. This case and the size of the fine levied, clearly demonstrate the perils that this practice can entail.
According to the report published today by the FSA, between 14 January 2005 and 30 September 2007, “Aon Ltd failed to properly assess the risks involved in its dealings with overseas firms and individuals who helped it win business and failed to implement effective controls to mitigate those risks. As a result of Aon Ltd’s weak control environment, the firm made various suspicious payments, amounting to approximately US$7 million, to a number of overseas firms and individuals. “
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement, said: “This is the largest financial crime related fine imposed by the FSA to date. It sends a clear message to the UK financial services industry that it is completely unacceptable for firms to conduct business overseas without having in place appropriate anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls.”
In April 2008 the FSA published its paper on Data Security where it states that firms should conduct due diligence on third party suppliers including ensuring third party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate.
__________________________________________________
It is not unusual for companies with robust employee vetting programmes to neglect to apply the same standards to the third parties they deal with. This case and the size of the fine levied, clearly demonstrate the perils that this practice can entail.
Jail time for applicants who lie on their CVs
NHS’s pre-employment screening practices come under scrutiny after director jailed for CV exaggerations. A senior director at the NHS has been jailed for exaggerating his qualifications during his job application.
In January 2007 Lee Whitehead was appointed director of planning and modernisation at Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust (PCT) after falsely claiming that in addition to being a member of the British Psychological Society (BPS) he had a first class bachelors degree, a Master’s degree and a doctorate, when in fact he only held a second class BSc in Psychology and was not a member of the BPS.
6 months after bring appointed Mr Whitehead resigned his £78,000 a year job after suspicions were raised by a coworker and Mr Whitehead was unable to provide proof of his qualifications. Even though the post-holder was not required to hold either a Master's or a PhD, or be a member of the BPS, the court handed out a 12 week prison sentence after Mr Whitehead pleaded guilty to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and making a false instrument.
The lies were not discovered by pre-employment screening checks but by a suspicious coworker and Mr Whitehead had made the same claims on applications going back to June 2003. These included the Vale of Aylesbury PCT, where he had worked from April 2005 until he started employment with Stoke PCT.
______________________________________________
It is very surprising that the NHS has chosen to appoint a senior official without checking their qualifications. Mr Whitehead occupied a position of public trust in a Primary Care Trust and there is no excuse that his background wasn’t thoroughly investigated at the recruitment stage.
This is not the first time that the NHS has failed to spot fraudulent applicants for senior positions. In 2003, Neil Taylor produced a bogus degree certificate to land the position as head of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust. The risks that the NHS takes when they skimp on the background investigation or when they start an applicant prior to the checks being completed can have very serious repercussions and it is a particularly risky approach when the qualifications are of a clinical nature. This can endanger patients' lives.
In January 2007 Lee Whitehead was appointed director of planning and modernisation at Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust (PCT) after falsely claiming that in addition to being a member of the British Psychological Society (BPS) he had a first class bachelors degree, a Master’s degree and a doctorate, when in fact he only held a second class BSc in Psychology and was not a member of the BPS.
6 months after bring appointed Mr Whitehead resigned his £78,000 a year job after suspicions were raised by a coworker and Mr Whitehead was unable to provide proof of his qualifications. Even though the post-holder was not required to hold either a Master's or a PhD, or be a member of the BPS, the court handed out a 12 week prison sentence after Mr Whitehead pleaded guilty to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and making a false instrument.
The lies were not discovered by pre-employment screening checks but by a suspicious coworker and Mr Whitehead had made the same claims on applications going back to June 2003. These included the Vale of Aylesbury PCT, where he had worked from April 2005 until he started employment with Stoke PCT.
______________________________________________
It is very surprising that the NHS has chosen to appoint a senior official without checking their qualifications. Mr Whitehead occupied a position of public trust in a Primary Care Trust and there is no excuse that his background wasn’t thoroughly investigated at the recruitment stage.
This is not the first time that the NHS has failed to spot fraudulent applicants for senior positions. In 2003, Neil Taylor produced a bogus degree certificate to land the position as head of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust. The risks that the NHS takes when they skimp on the background investigation or when they start an applicant prior to the checks being completed can have very serious repercussions and it is a particularly risky approach when the qualifications are of a clinical nature. This can endanger patients' lives.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Employment Offers in the City Continue to Tumble
Financial services firms’ recruitment drops significantly in response to the turmoil in the markets.
London, December 24th, 2008. Employment offers across financial services companies fell by 20% in November compared to the previous month. IT contractors working in financial services fell by 75% for the corresponding period, according to research carried out by Powerchex Limited, a pre-employment screening firm for financial institutions.
Investment Banks continued to cut back significantly on their new hires with a 55% drop in employment offers from October to November. Hedge funds and stock broking firms registered similar drops in offers made and accepted. Insurance firms bucked the trend with an increase of 10% in offers made in the past month.
“Recruitment is the financial sector is taking an unsurprising hit as companies are contracting in response to dramatically changing circumstances.” says Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of Powerchex. “Applicants will need to adjust their expectation and take a more structured approach in their job search. Even though the temptation is there, applicants should not risk losing a good opportunity by exaggerating their credentials.”
London, December 24th, 2008. Employment offers across financial services companies fell by 20% in November compared to the previous month. IT contractors working in financial services fell by 75% for the corresponding period, according to research carried out by Powerchex Limited, a pre-employment screening firm for financial institutions.
Investment Banks continued to cut back significantly on their new hires with a 55% drop in employment offers from October to November. Hedge funds and stock broking firms registered similar drops in offers made and accepted. Insurance firms bucked the trend with an increase of 10% in offers made in the past month.
“Recruitment is the financial sector is taking an unsurprising hit as companies are contracting in response to dramatically changing circumstances.” says Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of Powerchex. “Applicants will need to adjust their expectation and take a more structured approach in their job search. Even though the temptation is there, applicants should not risk losing a good opportunity by exaggerating their credentials.”
Friday, 19 December 2008
FSA Signals Tougher Vetting Requirements For Approved Persons Warns Pre-Employment Screening Company Powerchex
The credit crunch and bank bailouts have resulted in a global enhancement (and enforcement) of regulation. Pre-employment screening, especially in the financial services sector has also gotten a good deal of attention with new directives and guidance coming from different regulatory bodies.
______________________________________
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today published a consultation paper (CP) that clarifies the FSA’s expectations of those within firms that perform a ‘significant influence’ functions. The CP proposes several significant amendments to the FSA handbook.
In a move reminiscent of the Sarbanes Oxley legislation in the US, the FSA vows to pursue cases against individuals who breach the FSA’s Principles and the Code of Practice for Approved Persons.
“The FSA has made a strategic decision to investigate more individuals” says Alexandra Kelly, MD of City pre-employment screening company Powerchex, “they (the FSA) believe that this increased scrutiny will discourage questionable individuals from applying for significant management roles within the industry.”
The FSA has already started to interview more applicants for 'significant influence’ posts at high impact firms and is planning enforcement action if an individual is offered a post and subsequently fails to meet the required standards.
“This represents a significant change for financial firms. By introducing fines the FSA is sending a clear sign to companies that they should focus on undertaking proper due diligence.” claims Kelly. “As a further safeguard, firms should keep proper documentation of their vetting process in case they need to justify their decision on a particular applicant. They also need to be aware that this new process will introduce delays to the deployment of senior managers and plan accordingly.”
The other significant amendment proposes to extend the rule obliging firms to provide references for applicants of the CF30 (customer function) to all controlled functions if requested to do so.
“With this amendment the FSA is closing a gap in the referencing for approved persons” states Kelly. “There are no good reasons why the rule should not be extended to significant management functions, in fact, there are very good reasons why it should.
“It is critical, not just for the firm, but for market confidence that our major institutions are soundly run by individuals who have clearly demonstrated that they have the necessary skills, experience and integrity” states Graeme Ashley-Fenn, director of permissions, decisions and reporting division at the FSA. “Our vetting process is not intended to be a substitute for a firm undertaking proper due diligence itself – responsibility for this still lies with a firm’s senior management. These proposals align with a shift in FSA focus: where a significant influence holder shows incompetence or dishonesty, we will consider enforcement action against him or her.”
The consultation period closes on 31 March 2009. The FSA will then finalise the proposals and publish revised rules in a policy statement during the second quarter of 2009.
____________________
CP 08/25: The approved persons regime – significant influence function review can be found on the FSA website.
______________________________________
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today published a consultation paper (CP) that clarifies the FSA’s expectations of those within firms that perform a ‘significant influence’ functions. The CP proposes several significant amendments to the FSA handbook.
In a move reminiscent of the Sarbanes Oxley legislation in the US, the FSA vows to pursue cases against individuals who breach the FSA’s Principles and the Code of Practice for Approved Persons.
“The FSA has made a strategic decision to investigate more individuals” says Alexandra Kelly, MD of City pre-employment screening company Powerchex, “they (the FSA) believe that this increased scrutiny will discourage questionable individuals from applying for significant management roles within the industry.”
The FSA has already started to interview more applicants for 'significant influence’ posts at high impact firms and is planning enforcement action if an individual is offered a post and subsequently fails to meet the required standards.
“This represents a significant change for financial firms. By introducing fines the FSA is sending a clear sign to companies that they should focus on undertaking proper due diligence.” claims Kelly. “As a further safeguard, firms should keep proper documentation of their vetting process in case they need to justify their decision on a particular applicant. They also need to be aware that this new process will introduce delays to the deployment of senior managers and plan accordingly.”
The other significant amendment proposes to extend the rule obliging firms to provide references for applicants of the CF30 (customer function) to all controlled functions if requested to do so.
“With this amendment the FSA is closing a gap in the referencing for approved persons” states Kelly. “There are no good reasons why the rule should not be extended to significant management functions, in fact, there are very good reasons why it should.
“It is critical, not just for the firm, but for market confidence that our major institutions are soundly run by individuals who have clearly demonstrated that they have the necessary skills, experience and integrity” states Graeme Ashley-Fenn, director of permissions, decisions and reporting division at the FSA. “Our vetting process is not intended to be a substitute for a firm undertaking proper due diligence itself – responsibility for this still lies with a firm’s senior management. These proposals align with a shift in FSA focus: where a significant influence holder shows incompetence or dishonesty, we will consider enforcement action against him or her.”
The consultation period closes on 31 March 2009. The FSA will then finalise the proposals and publish revised rules in a policy statement during the second quarter of 2009.
____________________
CP 08/25: The approved persons regime – significant influence function review can be found on the FSA website.
Friday, 12 December 2008
HR Will See Increase In Corporate Fraud
Aliah D Wright, online editor for SHRM reports on a very disturbing trend which is emerging as the labour and financial markets become tighter. Our experience here at Powerchex, further re-enforces the results of this study, as we have seen a significant increase in application fraud.
_________________________________
Corporate fraud is on the rise, and, despite new laws to curb such abuse, this trend will significantly impact human resource professionals, says an expert in business intelligence. According to recently released Global Fraud Report, the average company loss to fraud has increased by 22 percent. The losses are largely driven by the credit crunch and troubled economic climate attributable to the subprime mortgage nightmare.
On average, businesses have lost $8.2 million to fraud in the past three years, compared with the 2007 figure, which stood at $7.6 million. The figures come from a study commissioned from the Economist Intelligence Unit based on a survey of 890 senior executives worldwide.What Types of Fraud?
The fastest-growing types of fraud were information theft (27 percent, up from 22 percent) and regulatory and compliance breaches (25 percent, up from 19 percent).
A closer look revealed that more than four out of five companies surveyed (85 percent) have suffered from corporate fraud in the past three years, up from 80 percent in the 2007 survey. For large companies, the proportion suffering from fraud rose to 90 percent, according to the study.
When it comes to breaches in compliance, HR is in the middle of the fray, having to manage compliance because of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires U.S. public companies and their independent auditors to show the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that their financial numbers are accurate and that they have processes in place to ensure that accuracy.
And the cost of complying isn't cheap.
According to the Financial Executives International's seventh Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance survey, the average 2007 SOX compliance cost was $1.7 million.
"Federal authorities--the SEC, Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney's office will apply regulations in new and unique ways in order to stem corporate improper activities and make sure there is more corporate accountability," Coppotelli said.
This might make HR's job even more challenging--especially given today's climate in which the federal government is willing to step in and aid those who might have committed corporate malfeasance in the subprime mortgage debacle.
"I think the whole subprime issue has yet to be fully addressed in terms of malfeasance," Coppotelli said.
$7.6M AMOUNT LOST BY BUSINESSES IN 2007 ATTRIBUTABLE TO CORPORATE FRAUD.
~~~~~~~~
By Aliah D. Wright
Aliah D. Wright, an online editor/manager for SHRM.
_________________________________
Corporate fraud is on the rise, and, despite new laws to curb such abuse, this trend will significantly impact human resource professionals, says an expert in business intelligence. According to recently released Global Fraud Report, the average company loss to fraud has increased by 22 percent. The losses are largely driven by the credit crunch and troubled economic climate attributable to the subprime mortgage nightmare.
On average, businesses have lost $8.2 million to fraud in the past three years, compared with the 2007 figure, which stood at $7.6 million. The figures come from a study commissioned from the Economist Intelligence Unit based on a survey of 890 senior executives worldwide.What Types of Fraud?
The fastest-growing types of fraud were information theft (27 percent, up from 22 percent) and regulatory and compliance breaches (25 percent, up from 19 percent).
A closer look revealed that more than four out of five companies surveyed (85 percent) have suffered from corporate fraud in the past three years, up from 80 percent in the 2007 survey. For large companies, the proportion suffering from fraud rose to 90 percent, according to the study.
When it comes to breaches in compliance, HR is in the middle of the fray, having to manage compliance because of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires U.S. public companies and their independent auditors to show the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that their financial numbers are accurate and that they have processes in place to ensure that accuracy.
And the cost of complying isn't cheap.
According to the Financial Executives International's seventh Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance survey, the average 2007 SOX compliance cost was $1.7 million.
"Federal authorities--the SEC, Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney's office will apply regulations in new and unique ways in order to stem corporate improper activities and make sure there is more corporate accountability," Coppotelli said.
This might make HR's job even more challenging--especially given today's climate in which the federal government is willing to step in and aid those who might have committed corporate malfeasance in the subprime mortgage debacle.
"I think the whole subprime issue has yet to be fully addressed in terms of malfeasance," Coppotelli said.
$7.6M AMOUNT LOST BY BUSINESSES IN 2007 ATTRIBUTABLE TO CORPORATE FRAUD.
~~~~~~~~
By Aliah D. Wright
Aliah D. Wright, an online editor/manager for SHRM.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Festive scam alert
Scam-artists are more likely to target their victims during the festive period and in an economic downturn, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has warned. From miracle slimming products which would be aimed at those hoping to lose weight after Christmas parties, to the threat of online identity theft, consumers should be extra careful with their identities and their money. Scam-artists offering swift cash rewards were likely to be more active during the economic downturn. Consumers should regularly monitor their bank accounts and alert their bank whenever they see transactions which they do not recognise.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Powerchex wins the "NatWest Business of the Year 2008" Award
Six hundred people attended the NatWest Thames Gateway Business Awards last Friday, 21st November at the Excel, London in a celebration of entrepreneurship designed to recognise and honour the Thames Gateway’s top businesses.
Powerchex, the leader in pre-employment screening solutions for financial firms scooped the top award for the evening presented by TV chef and former star of Strictly Come Dancing James Martin. In addition to winning the Business of the Year Award, Powerchex was also highly commended in the Innovation category for its accredited graduate development programme “STARS”.
Powerchex has beaten off stiff competition to win Business of the Year in the 2008 NatWest Thames Gateway Awards – the region’s premier showcase for the most promising businesses and the inspirational entrepreneurs behind them.
Alexandra Kelly, the MD of Powerchex, originally asked the BBC dragons to invest in her idea for a company specialising in staff referencing for the financial services industry. But when they said no, she decided to go it alone – and four years later Powerchex is the fastest-growing vetting and job referencing service in the UK boasting an office in the city, 40 staff, and an impressive roster of first rate financial clients.
“Being recognised as the Business of the Year in these prestigious awards is the crowning achievement in a year that can only be described as incredible” said Alexandra. “Having doubled in size and revenues in the past year, Powerchex is now ready to start a new year of success and innovation.”
"The 11th Archant London Thames Gateway Business Awards was a huge success” added Enzo Testa, Executive Managing Director of Archant the event’s organisers.
“The calibre of entries from businesses and individuals was extremely high and the evening was recognition of the drive and determination within the community to ensure that the area thrives over the coming years."
In addition to winning the Thames Gateway Business of the Year Award, Powerchex participated in the Thames Valley Business Awards, where it was awarded a high commendation in the Small Business category. The award was presented by Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, former Foreign Secretary and deputy leader of the Labour Party and was sponsored by Regus.
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Criminal records on sale for just £37
Employers have been found to abuse the system in obtaining CRB checks for roles which do not justify this type of in-depth criminal search. The Sunday Times investigated the allegations and came up with some very interesting findings (see article below). CRB criminal searches are different from Basic Criminal Searches (offered through Disclosure Scotland) which are available and legal for any level of employee.
Basic Criminal Searches only disclose unspent criminal convictions
...............................................................................................
Police files that were opened up with the aim of helping to protect children from sex offenders are being sold for as little as £37 to employers who simply want to find out more about job applicants.
The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), an executive agency of the Home Office, was set up six years ago to carry out checks on prospective employees whose work would bring them into contact with children and vulnerable adults. Its declared aim is to identify those unsuitable for such work.
But a Sunday Times investigation has established that the CRB is passing files to more than 50 recruitment agencies and corporate investigators which check the background of people applying for jobs that may have nothing to do with children or other vulnerable groups.
Some offer unlawful checks of potential business partners and staff, ranging from web designers to clerical workers. The disclosures mean further questions for Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, already embroiled in a row over the loss of criminal data.
Last week Paul Cavadino, the chief executive of Nacro, a charity that works to reduce crime, called for an inquiry into the trade in CRB records. He said: “The law is clearly being flouted in some cases and it is outrageous that it has been allowed to happen.”
One of the agencies accredited by the CRB — the United Criminal Records Bureau — offers criminal record checks for potential employees for £37. For an extra £5 it can supply an enhanced check that may include unproven police intelligence.
Operating out of a detached house in Bexleyheath, Kent, it claims to scrutinise thousands of police records each year. When approached last week by an undercover reporter asking for information about medical sales staff, it offered checks on a range of employees “as long as you are willing to pay upfront”.
Meena Thiagarajan, a director of the company which operates United Criminal Records Bureau, recommended enhanced checks for administrative staff who were handling confidential company documents. “Whatever they’ve done in their entire life will come up on their enhanced disclosure,” she claimed.
She said an employee’s agreement should be obtained for a request for the file but admitted that she did not obtain original documentation, such as a passport, to check the validity of the application. The reporter did not follow up her offer by submitting an application.
When confronted by The Sunday Times, Thiagarajan said all applications were carefully checked and she would not have submitted an unlawful one. In some cases enhanced checks on administrative staff were justified, she said.
The CRB was established under the Police Act 1997, which stipulates that checks be confined to those working with children and vulnerable adults, and some specific jobs such as police officers, lawyers and accountants. It was launched in March 2002 with the objective of improving access to criminal records in the interests of public safety.
The owner of another CRB-accredited agency, who asked not to be identified, said legal checks on credit card ratings, mortgage details and driving records were routinely checked for job applicants. She said some companies were also offering unlawful checks on criminal records, with a complete background check costing as much as £100.
“It’s easy to abuse the system,” she said. “You can get almost anyone’s criminal record because there are no proper checks to ensure you’re complying with the law.”
At least some of the information held by the CRB appears to have been sent to companies overseas. The CRB lists one company on its website, Personnel Profile Specialists Ltd (PPSL), at a residential address in Upminster, Essex, but its head office is in Auckland, New Zealand.
The PPSL website states: “PPSL are unique in New Zealand as we are the only organisation with an office in the UK registered to access records from the Criminal Records Bureau . . . this has proven exceptionally useful to our clients.”
Richard Peach, who owns the company, said it was not currently accredited by the CRB but had always complied with rules when checking British criminal records.
The law was a “grey area”, he said. But he believed a criminal record, once in the public domain, should be accessible.
Many employees are worried by the ease with which dubious or borderline checks can be made because of the minor misdemeanours and unproven allegations that can be unearthed. In one case, the subject of a complaint to the information commissioner, a CRB search revealed the theft of a packet of meat worth 99p in 1984 when the person involved was 16.
Nacro now gets about 20,000 calls a year from people with concerns about the CRB system, including unlawful checks, compared to about 7,000 a year when it was first launched.
A CRB helpline offers little support. One caller who complained of an unlawful check last week was told there was little the CRB could do to help, even though it was accepted by the telephone operator that the rules appeared to have been broken. “If you don’t comply, obviously they will not employ you,” the caller was told.
In a landmark case Derek Howman, 46, from Weaverham, Cheshire, who was fired from his job as a gardener at a residential home after an enhanced CRB check, is taking legal action. He claims the check, which revealed two spent offences, was unlawful. He is seeking compensation.
His case is backed by the information commissioner, who concluded that the CRB check appeared to be unwarranted.
Nacro says it would prefer new a system where employees in the caring professions are vetted by a licensing authority without the criminal records being sent to employers.
The Home Office stated that agencies could have their accreditation removed if they carried out improper checks.
Basic Criminal Searches only disclose unspent criminal convictions
...............................................................................................
Police files that were opened up with the aim of helping to protect children from sex offenders are being sold for as little as £37 to employers who simply want to find out more about job applicants.
The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), an executive agency of the Home Office, was set up six years ago to carry out checks on prospective employees whose work would bring them into contact with children and vulnerable adults. Its declared aim is to identify those unsuitable for such work.
But a Sunday Times investigation has established that the CRB is passing files to more than 50 recruitment agencies and corporate investigators which check the background of people applying for jobs that may have nothing to do with children or other vulnerable groups.
Some offer unlawful checks of potential business partners and staff, ranging from web designers to clerical workers. The disclosures mean further questions for Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, already embroiled in a row over the loss of criminal data.
Last week Paul Cavadino, the chief executive of Nacro, a charity that works to reduce crime, called for an inquiry into the trade in CRB records. He said: “The law is clearly being flouted in some cases and it is outrageous that it has been allowed to happen.”
One of the agencies accredited by the CRB — the United Criminal Records Bureau — offers criminal record checks for potential employees for £37. For an extra £5 it can supply an enhanced check that may include unproven police intelligence.
Operating out of a detached house in Bexleyheath, Kent, it claims to scrutinise thousands of police records each year. When approached last week by an undercover reporter asking for information about medical sales staff, it offered checks on a range of employees “as long as you are willing to pay upfront”.
Meena Thiagarajan, a director of the company which operates United Criminal Records Bureau, recommended enhanced checks for administrative staff who were handling confidential company documents. “Whatever they’ve done in their entire life will come up on their enhanced disclosure,” she claimed.
She said an employee’s agreement should be obtained for a request for the file but admitted that she did not obtain original documentation, such as a passport, to check the validity of the application. The reporter did not follow up her offer by submitting an application.
When confronted by The Sunday Times, Thiagarajan said all applications were carefully checked and she would not have submitted an unlawful one. In some cases enhanced checks on administrative staff were justified, she said.
The CRB was established under the Police Act 1997, which stipulates that checks be confined to those working with children and vulnerable adults, and some specific jobs such as police officers, lawyers and accountants. It was launched in March 2002 with the objective of improving access to criminal records in the interests of public safety.
The owner of another CRB-accredited agency, who asked not to be identified, said legal checks on credit card ratings, mortgage details and driving records were routinely checked for job applicants. She said some companies were also offering unlawful checks on criminal records, with a complete background check costing as much as £100.
“It’s easy to abuse the system,” she said. “You can get almost anyone’s criminal record because there are no proper checks to ensure you’re complying with the law.”
At least some of the information held by the CRB appears to have been sent to companies overseas. The CRB lists one company on its website, Personnel Profile Specialists Ltd (PPSL), at a residential address in Upminster, Essex, but its head office is in Auckland, New Zealand.
The PPSL website states: “PPSL are unique in New Zealand as we are the only organisation with an office in the UK registered to access records from the Criminal Records Bureau . . . this has proven exceptionally useful to our clients.”
Richard Peach, who owns the company, said it was not currently accredited by the CRB but had always complied with rules when checking British criminal records.
The law was a “grey area”, he said. But he believed a criminal record, once in the public domain, should be accessible.
Many employees are worried by the ease with which dubious or borderline checks can be made because of the minor misdemeanours and unproven allegations that can be unearthed. In one case, the subject of a complaint to the information commissioner, a CRB search revealed the theft of a packet of meat worth 99p in 1984 when the person involved was 16.
Nacro now gets about 20,000 calls a year from people with concerns about the CRB system, including unlawful checks, compared to about 7,000 a year when it was first launched.
A CRB helpline offers little support. One caller who complained of an unlawful check last week was told there was little the CRB could do to help, even though it was accepted by the telephone operator that the rules appeared to have been broken. “If you don’t comply, obviously they will not employ you,” the caller was told.
In a landmark case Derek Howman, 46, from Weaverham, Cheshire, who was fired from his job as a gardener at a residential home after an enhanced CRB check, is taking legal action. He claims the check, which revealed two spent offences, was unlawful. He is seeking compensation.
His case is backed by the information commissioner, who concluded that the CRB check appeared to be unwarranted.
Nacro says it would prefer new a system where employees in the caring professions are vetted by a licensing authority without the criminal records being sent to employers.
The Home Office stated that agencies could have their accreditation removed if they carried out improper checks.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
The 2007 International Privacy Ranking
We are often asked about data privacy and data protection globally. We hope that the country rankings of Privacy International together with the individual country comments will help answer some of your questions.
...................................
Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection.
The most recent report published in 2007, available at http://www.privacyinternational.org/phr , is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs over 1,100 pages and includes 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from eminent privacy scholars to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice. In 2006 Privacy International took the decision to use this annual report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all EU countries together with eleven non-EU benchmark countries (click here for the 2006 results). Follow this link for more details of last year's results.
The new 2007 global rankings extend the survey to 47 countries (from the original 37) and, for the first time, provide an opportunity to assess trends.
Summary of key findings
The 2007 rankings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protection across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and a declining performance o privacy safeguards.
Concern over immigration and border control dominated the world agenda in 2007. Countries have moved swiftly to implement database, identity and fingerprinting systems, often without regard to the privacy implications for their own citizens
The 2007 rankings show an increasing trend amongst governments to archive data on the geographic, communications and financial records of all their citizens and residents. This trend leads to the conclusion that all citizens, regardless of legal status, are under suspicion.
The privacy trends have been fueled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global IT companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside judicial or democratic processes.
Despite political shifts in the US Congress, surveillance initiatives in the US continue to expand, affecting visitors and citizens alike.
Surveillance initiatives initiated by Brussels have caused a substantial decline in privacy across Europe, eroding protections even in those countries that have shown a traditionally high regard for privacy.
The privacy performance of older democracies in Europe is generally failing, while the performance of newer democracies is becoming generally stronger.
The lowest ranking countries in the survey continue to be Malaysia, Russia and China. The highest-ranking countries in 2007 are Greece, Romania and Canada.
The 2006 leader, Germany, slipped significantly in the 2007 rankings, dropping from 1st to 7th place behind Portugal and Slovenia.
In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines and falling into the "black" category, denoting endemic surveillance.
The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the "black" category along with Russia and Singapore. However for the first time Scotland has been given its own ranking score and performed significantly better than England & Wales.
Argentina scored higher than 18 of the 27 EU countries.
Australia ranks higher than Slovakia but lower than South Africa and New Zealand.
...................................
Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection.
The most recent report published in 2007, available at http://www.privacyinternational.org/phr , is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs over 1,100 pages and includes 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from eminent privacy scholars to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice. In 2006 Privacy International took the decision to use this annual report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all EU countries together with eleven non-EU benchmark countries (click here for the 2006 results). Follow this link for more details of last year's results.
The new 2007 global rankings extend the survey to 47 countries (from the original 37) and, for the first time, provide an opportunity to assess trends.
Summary of key findings
The 2007 rankings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protection across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and a declining performance o privacy safeguards.
Concern over immigration and border control dominated the world agenda in 2007. Countries have moved swiftly to implement database, identity and fingerprinting systems, often without regard to the privacy implications for their own citizens
The 2007 rankings show an increasing trend amongst governments to archive data on the geographic, communications and financial records of all their citizens and residents. This trend leads to the conclusion that all citizens, regardless of legal status, are under suspicion.
The privacy trends have been fueled by the emergence of a profitable surveillance industry dominated by global IT companies and the creation of numerous international treaties that frequently operate outside judicial or democratic processes.
Despite political shifts in the US Congress, surveillance initiatives in the US continue to expand, affecting visitors and citizens alike.
Surveillance initiatives initiated by Brussels have caused a substantial decline in privacy across Europe, eroding protections even in those countries that have shown a traditionally high regard for privacy.
The privacy performance of older democracies in Europe is generally failing, while the performance of newer democracies is becoming generally stronger.
The lowest ranking countries in the survey continue to be Malaysia, Russia and China. The highest-ranking countries in 2007 are Greece, Romania and Canada.
The 2006 leader, Germany, slipped significantly in the 2007 rankings, dropping from 1st to 7th place behind Portugal and Slovenia.
In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines and falling into the "black" category, denoting endemic surveillance.
The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the "black" category along with Russia and Singapore. However for the first time Scotland has been given its own ranking score and performed significantly better than England & Wales.
Argentina scored higher than 18 of the 27 EU countries.
Australia ranks higher than Slovakia but lower than South Africa and New Zealand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
