In Focus Consumer Credit


Fraud and covert surveillance: the way forward?


The Serious Fraud Office has again talked of using covert surveillance in agency investigations, but there are doubts about such an approach


Neil Williams Legal director, Rahman Ravelli neil.williams @rahmanravelli.co.uk


The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) director Lisa Osofsky has once more expressed her desire to see covert surveillance play a greater role in her agency’s battle against white-collar crime. Speaking at an ABA conference in London,


the director emphasised the value of such an approach when it comes to tackling crime and her belief in the need to work closely with cooperating defendants.


Understandable It is an idea that is understandable. After all, information gained from those who decide to tell all in exchange for some kind of a deal with the authorities can be of great worth to the SFO – or any investigating agency. And covert surveillance is arguably the


most direct way of obtaining evidence necessary for a prosecution, especially regarding white-collar crime where the chances of a ‘smoking gun’ being left behind can be more remote than in other forms of criminal activity.


Less experience Yet the SFO has less experience than other agencies in covert policing methods and its officers have no power of arrest. This could arguably be overcome by


calling on the services of the National Crime Agency (NCA) or police forces if and when the need arises. Agencies can and do work together. And


if they could be deployed in harmony on cases this could be a game changer for the SFO.


December 2019


Covert surveillance can be of value. It has certainly brought success in a number of HM Revenue and Customs tax-fraud cases. But what needs to be considered is whether this is a practical approach for the SFO


Covert surveillance can be of value. It has


certainly brought success in a number of HM Revenue and Customs tax-fraud cases. But what needs to be considered is whether this is a practical approach for the SFO.


Bugging The NCA could be deployed on behalf of the SFO to, for example, bug a chief executive officer’s car, office or home. But, assuming the legality of the bug was


not in question, any success would depend on audio or video evidence being obtained of the person in question talking loud and clear about their wrongdoing, as all the mob guys seem to do when they are bugged in US crime dramas.


Barriers If the SFO is now looking to use wires on cooperating witnesses in order to obtain evidence, this is a route that is fraught with difficulties in the UK. The barriers to their


www.CCRMagazine.com


use, both legal and cultural, can seem to be insurmountable. And given the historical lack of enthusiasm


for wiretaps and cooperating defendants, there may need to a culture change to make increased use more palatable. In the US, there are incentives available for those who choose to cooperate whereas the best the UK can really offer is immunity. This makes it difficult to understand why


anyone other than those known by the SFO to be mired in the offending would come forward. It is very rare for an SFO investigation to


be live at the time of the event. It needs a trigger for that to happen, which inevitably points towards a whistleblower. So, unless the SFO has any real-time


information about an ongoing offence – or about plots to commit an offence – then they are realistically only going to be able to deploy surveillance after the event, in the hope that someone does talk about the wrongdoing that has been committed.


After the event If the SFO is set to rely on after-the-event surveillance while itself lacking experience in conducting surveillance, it could be said that the agency has areas of weakness when it comes to carrying out its own investigations. It may well come to use surveillance


intelligently and successfully, but, in order to do so, it is going to require the perfect storm of real-time intelligence, the availability of expertise from other agencies and the possibility of someone being ready to talk. CCR


25


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52