11
• how many reports of fraud they had received directly had resulted in
attendance or other police activity; or
• the outcome of the case.
Also, in all 11 forces’ data, there were discrepancies between the number of
disseminations that the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau stated that they had sent
to the force and the number the force had recorded.
We found that fraud was generally not prioritised and, as a result, analysis was
limited. Beyond that, there are several reasons for an inadequate understanding
of demand. For instance, fraud is not recorded, like other crimes, by police forces: it
is recorded by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Frauds for investigation are
then allocated to police forces. It is these investigations that police forces are
required to make a record of.
Police forces are also required to make a record of frauds reported to them that they
treat as a call for service, as well as reporting them to Action Fraud so that they can
be recorded by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau.
How well do capability and capacity match identified and anticipated demand?
In the forces we inspected, the proportion of staff dedicated to fraud varied
considerably with, in most cases, limited understanding why.
Some forces had small fraud investigation units of two staff while others had no
dedicated fraud team. Fraud investigations were sometimes undertaken in economic
crime units or financial crime teams with responsibility for all economic crime,
including money laundering and asset recovery as well as fraud.
We were told that resources had been diverted away from fraud to priority crimes
and we found some fraud teams with capacity to deal with just one investigation at
a time. This meant that other frauds, including complex or complicated cases, were
allocated to investigators who were not fraud trained. We also found that these staff
had supervisors who were not fraud trained.
This lack of capacity and capability has an adverse effect on the quality of service
provided to victims of fraud.
Forces allocate calls for service and National Fraud Intelligence Bureau
disseminations differently. Calls for service are dealt with and allocated like most
other crimes, according to local force policies. National Fraud Intelligence Bureau
disseminations are received at a central point in force. In some cases, the National
Fraud Intelligence Bureau decision to allocate the crime to that force is reviewed.
In all cases, a decision is then made by a supervisor or ‘triage’ team as to whether
the force will investigate the crime.