Please help - Being accused of fraud

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Oh yes we've all made mistakes.

Doesn't change the fact that at the end of it. This isn't some job application or loan he's made a mistake on, or told a porkie pie on.

He was being vetted to asses his suitability to hold a role. He falsely answered. Mistake or not. That is what happens when you're vetted and the information can be shared.

When someone is vetted, the questions are very clear, it is also made very clear they will be vetted and the gravity of lying.

So a bit of self responsibility needs to come in here, he should've been more thorough. As from their point of view, he lied on the vetting application. Which they will record.

Yeah.

Yeah yeah yeah..

As I said, enough evidence for the particular employer to permanently bar OP from employment with themselves. But falls short of enough to report to an external database.

There is no evidence of a crime. Just evidence of something which could either be a mistake or a crime. The criterion for a criminal conviction is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. OP's error is not a crime 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So no basis to record it.

tinkerbell28

Yes there is. You obviously don't understand what being vetted for a job means.

They do it so they can rule out fraudsters, or people who are significant risk with the position they hold.

To stop fraudsters, criminals, and people of significant risk being put in a position they could abuse. There is safeguards, which you clearly don't seem, to understand.

If he is deemed a risk to holding a job in the financial sector, because he lied on his vetting, they can record it and share it. Even if it is a "mistake" or not. He lied. So hopefully for op they have a heart.

Personally I think it's a bit harsh. But op by his own admission said he didn't read properly. Lesson learnt I'd say. As it was a clear cut question, no room for ambiguity and no doubt he signed saying everything was a true declaration and the consequences if not. Always read properly especially when applying to be cleared for a job!

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Yes there is. You obviously don't understand what being vetted for a job means.

They do it so they can rule out fraudsters, or people who are significant risk with the position they hold.

To stop fraudsters, criminals, and people of significant risk being put in a position they could abuse. There is safeguards, which you clearly don't seem, to understand.

If he is deemed a risk to holding a job in the financial sector, because he lied on his vetting, they can record it and share it. Even if it is a "mistake" or not. He lied. So hopefully for op they have a heart.

Personally I think it's a bit harsh. But op by his own admission said he didn't read properly. Lesson learnt I'd say. As it was a clear cut question, no room for ambiguity and no doubt he signed saying everything was a true declaration and the consequences if not. Always read properly especially when applying to be cleared for a job!

I know full well what being vetted means.

He was vetted on the answers, including his mistake - or 'mistake' if you want to look at it that way and he does not get the job, probably never gets a job with the employer in question. He understands that, I understand that.

Now, let's deal with the bit which you are failing to grasp. The criterion for inclusion on an external database is as already quoted

• The Staff Fraud Database Member must have sufficient clear evidence of wrongdoing to have reasonable grounds to press criminal charges if a suspect was traced.
• Staff Fraud Database Member must be willing to make a full report to the police.
• A criminal offence must be identifiable.

In this instance, there simply is not an adequate basis to identify a criminal offence with wrongdoing and reasonable grounds to press criminal charges. 'Deemed' is simply not adequate to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act to treat Dta Subjects fairly.

And you cannot conflate a 'mistake' with a 'lie'. Either OP made a mistake in good faith or he told a lie. Making a mistake in good faith is in no way telling a lie - from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

At this point the employer has no basis to distinguish between whether it was a mistake or a lie. If they had confirmed the specific answer at interview, they would be on much firmer ground to take it forward as a lie.

tinkerbell28

I have grasped it, you haven't.

They presumably have from op, a form where he's made the false declaration. Along with a signature, or e signature. Confirming all information is correct.

It's down to op to prove he made the mistake, and did not intend to set out to deceive, as he has made a false declaration. It is really that very simple.

The reason fraud markers are there is to stop people hopping from one financial institution to another, lying and covering up their past.

He needs to appeal to their good nature.

Fwiw again, I thinks it's harsh. As op just sounds to me like he did not read it properly. But that's neither here no there.

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

I have grasped it, you haven't. [1]

They presumably have from op, a form where he's made the false declaration. Along with a signature, or e signature. Confirming all information is correct.
Agreed

It's down to op to prove he made the mistake, and did not intend to set out to deceive, as he has made a false declaration. It is really that very simple.
He has in all probability made a mistake rather than a (deliberately) false declaration

The reason fraud markers are there is to stop people hopping from one financial institution to another, lying and covering up their past.
Tell me I am thick, go on. The reason for fraud markers is blindingly obvious [2]

He needs to appeal to their good nature.

Fwiw again, I thinks it's harsh. As op just sounds to me like he did not read it properly. But that's neither here no there.

[1] You have not grasped the Data Protection requirements here. To go on a database accessible outside the prospective employer, there is a standard which the data must meet. For the 3rd time it must meet this:

• The Staff Fraud Database Member must have sufficient clear evidence of wrongdoing to have reasonable grounds to press criminal charges if a suspect was traced.
• Staff Fraud Database Member must be willing to make a full report to the police.
• A criminal offence must be identifiable.

Now, if you are going to make a useful contribution, show us how the facts meet the given criteria.

[2] The fraud database will be reduced in value if it includes careless people like the OP along with the criminally minded. The database is generally a good idea - but if it is used to punish people who make mistakes in good faith, it is a bad idea.

tinkerbell28

You haven't grasped it though have you?

The bank have the false declaration there.

They have the facts there, they obviously believe with the false declaration. They do have grounds for fraud. They don't have to go to the police or make a complaint. They just have to have grounds to believe they can do so, if they wish. They are saying to op they do have grounds to suspect fraud and have his false declaration.

Op now says it was a mistake. Which he has no proof of.

They have their factual information. A declaration with false information. Then the credit report in black and white which shows the declaration was false. For whatever reason.

Pretty clear cut. I do hope sincerely op doesn't have it recorded, I really do. As it is a crappy outcome for an oversight if they do record it. He's got a difficult fight ahead. As you said yourself. The question was clear cut, so you're trying to make an argument which is difficult and weak using your words. So crack on :beer:

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

You haven't grasped it though have you?

The bank have the false declaration there.

They have the facts there, they obviously believe with the false declaration. They do have grounds for fraud. They don't have to go to the police or make a complaint. They just have to have grounds to believe they can do so, if they wish. They are saying to op they do have grounds to suspect fraud and have his false declaration.

Op now says it was a mistake. Which he has no proof of.

They have their factual information. A declaration with false information. Then the credit report in black and white which shows the declaration was false. For whatever reason.

Pretty clear cut. I do hope sincerely op doesn't have it recorded, I really do. As it is a crappy outcome for an oversight if they do record it. He's got a difficult fight ahead. As you said yourself. The question was clear cut, so you're trying to make an argument which is difficult and weak using your words. So crack on :beer:

As you have grasped it, according to your own light, you will have no trouble showing that these criteria are met

• The Staff Fraud Database Member must have sufficient clear evidence of wrongdoing to have reasonable grounds to press criminal charges if a suspect was traced.
• Staff Fraud Database Member must be willing to make a full report to the police.
• A criminal offence must be identifiable.

While OP may have no proof that he made a mistake, neither does the prospective employer have any proof that it was fraud. All they have is something which may be evidence of attempted fraud or may be a simple mistake

Waiting for you to grasp it.

tinkerbell28

They have proof of a false declaration, so they now have to decide if they wish to record that.

You really are very angry for some reason and I don't get it. Ever since your points didnt hold water, when op said it was a clear cut question. Is it an ego thing?

It's ok I understand, however this is really derailing now and it is clear you are clutching at straws for some odd reason. So I bid you goodnight and I shall let you have the last word, as you obviously can't challenged at all, can you? Goodnight.

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

They have proof of a false declaration, so they now have to decide if they wish to record that.

You really are very angry for some reason and I don't get it. Ever since your points didnt hold water, when op said it was a clear cut question. Is it an ego thing?

It's ok I understand, however this is really derailing now and it is clear you are clutching at straws for some odd reason. So I bid you goodnight and I shall let you have the last word, as you obviously can't challenged at all, can you? Goodnight.

I am not angry, I am just puzzled that you should be saying my points don't hold water and that I don't grasp it when you yourself cannot show that the criteria for recording OP on the external Database are not met.

I think your accusation of anger may relate to twisting the situation somewhat and hoping to provoke some anger. While they have proof of a false declaration in the sense that it is wrong, the question is totally open as to whether it is false due to a mistake or a lie.

Wadsworth

Wow. Just been reading the lengthy and somewhat helpful replies on here. Thank you very much to those who have offered their words of wisdom.

First thing first. The bank has refused to take into account that I have made a mistake and have gone ahead and added me to the database.
I have responded (citing the section taken from the CIFAS website), and they have sent me a 'Final Response Letter' telling me that I now must take up the matter with CIFAS.

I must point out that I did apply for employment there last year, and I obviously answered 'correctly' that time, and was refused almost instantly. Now, before I am accused of changing my answers in the hope to get a different outcome, the email refusing me employment last year did not state any specific reason I was refused, so I could not possibly have known it was because of my poor credit.

I have never been given the opportunity to present any evidence to support the reason why the mistake could have been made. All I want is to get back into employment. I have filled out countless of online applications lately.... 'do you do this, have you done that?' all clicking 'Yes' or 'No'. Everything gets so mundane you feel like a robot filling in countless forms.

Unemployment adds to several other stresses I have going on in my life at the moment, and I have made a mistake.

I have never been in trouble with the law - ever. Only a few weeks ago I found a purse full of money in the street. I handed it to the police, I didn't have a penny in my pocket at the time. Surely someone who was dishonest (like I am being made out to be), would have just taken that money?

I am under stress from so many different angles at the moment and I am astounded that this could happen to me.

I know it has been question on here about my integrity, and I understand why. But you don't know me nor my background, and it is really frustrating that I have not been given the chance by the bank to fully explain my circumstances and why such a mistake has been made.