DHSS benefit fraud - who investigates and prosecutes

[Goingtoseed]

I wonder if I could ask Cassandra for a comment on this.


I was having a deep and meaningful conversation with a friend that I have not seen for ages. In passing he mentioned jokingly that he has a criminal conviction for theft/deception etc for working whilst claiming Unemployment benefit/Jobseekers benefit. I was surprised that this would be the case given that he only made that claim for some 12 months or so whilst trying to start his business off from nothing.
I'm not too sure how long ago was this, probably in the early 90's. What he told me was that he pleaded guilty in a Crown Court without offering any mitigation to defrauding the DWP out of £12,000. He was of good character with no previous criminal history. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison 5 months of which to be suspended for 2 years. Plus he had to repay the £12,000 within 3 months.


I was given to understand that the DWP always prosecute but in his case the DWP handed it over to the Police to investigate and he was prosecuted by the CPS under the Theft Act.


Of all the years in my career with the government I have never heard of a case of that size going down that route.


It shocked me to be honest that the DWP, DHSS as it was, would take that line of action.


Your views would be appreciated.

[Cassandra]

In the case you mention, it's difficult to be concise without all the facts of course, as I have attempted to mitigate on here before? However, that said the Convicted did at that time, with malice aforethought defraud the public purse of £12,000 pounds, thirty years ago. He therefore  'obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception'.

The Law specifically on 'Benefit Crime/Fraud' (his offence today) states;

... The CPS took on the prosecution of DWP criminal investigations in 2012, and until the restructure of fraud work in July 2018, these cases were handled exclusively by the Specialist Fraud Division (SFD). Since the restructure, only DWP cases meeting the SFD referral criteria continue to be prosecuted in SFD, with the others handled by the specialist fraud centres in CPS Wessex, Mersey-Cheshire and Wales.

Section 128 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (WRA) permits the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and persons providing services to the Secretary of State to disclose social security information to the Director for Public Prosecutions (DPP) for the purpose of the functions exercised by the DPP.

Section 129 of the WRA 2012 prescribes the use that can be made of social security (including tax credit) information disclosed by the Secretary of State under Section 128 and creates an offence of unlawful disclosure. CPS prosecutors disclosing social security information in accordance with the DPP’s functions and CPS policies will incur no liability...

In sentencing currently, such values as;

Did the offender plan the crime to deprive, was he a 'professional' (scammer con-man)?
Was there a victim and were they cruelly susceptible (elderly or disabled)? 
Was any physical harm proffered? 
Did deliberate concealment occur?
Was the motivation greed or political (terrorism)? including identity deceit?
Was embezzlement or detinue involved?
Was encitement to others to become inclusive made?
Any previous offences?
How long did he persist with the fraudulent benefit claim?

This list is not exhaustive, but it seems to me none of the above were applicable to your friend.

A prison term of up to 10 years can apply for this offence. The use of a custodial sentence with suspension seems right and the term I consider to have been something I would have handed down myself - NB please at that time, within the sentencing guidelines applicable? Although I expect he actually never served any time, remand etc being taken into account? I would conjecture that he may have also been severally pursued for bankruptcy in a civil arena by a preferential creditor and the bench took these circumstantial fiscal chastisements into account as well. I presume no order was made for costs?

Today he could under new guidelines to be handed a fine and a non-custodial sentence. 

[klondike]

Today he could under new guidelines to be handed a fine and a non-custodial sentence.

I imagine that's a bit of a relief in some quarters.

[John V]

 The DWP can’t prosecute, they’re a government department. The DWP would make a complaint, the police would investigate and the CPS decides on whether the case has a percentage chance of conviction if it’s taken to court. In this instance obviously yes.

Just as an aside, everything such as passports, NI, tax, benefits … is linked by computers now and it’s almost impossible to fiddle, unlike in earlier times.   

[klondike]

it’s almost impossible to fiddle, unlike in earlier times.

Where there is, a will there is a way I'm sure.

[Scrumpy]

It's almost impossible to fiddle, unlike in earlier times.

I am pleased to see  the word ALMOST .


Anything can be fiddled with .. There are bad INSIDE the government and OUTSIDE..
There are some very clever people out there . The wealthy being some of the best fiddlers ..

[mick607]

Family trusts are a legal fiddle.

[John V]

 It’s ‘almost impossible’ meaning not like earlier times when everything was  paperwork. Same with car tax and insurance, everything is computerized and if you try to fiddle now for example working and claiming benefits eventually you’d get caught. You'd have to make yourself an entirely new identity to do it now.   

[Cassandra]

.. The DWP can’t prosecute, they’re a government department. The DWP would make a complaint, the police would investigate and the CPS decides on whether the case has a percentage chance of conviction if it’s taken to court. In this instance obviously yes...

Er - isn't that what I said?
The Law specifically on 'Benefit Crime/Fraud' (his offence today) states;

... The CPS took on the prosecution of DWP criminal investigations in 2012, and until the restructure of fraud work in July 2018 ... ?

[Scrumpy]

It’s ‘almost impossible’ meaning not like earlier times when everything was paperwork. Same with car tax and insurance, everything is computerized and if you try to fiddle now for example working and claiming benefits eventually you’d get caught. You'd have to make yourself an entirely new identity to do it now. 

Eventually you'd get caught. !!

Are you saying that ALL the 'fiddlers' out there will eventually get caught..?   What a load of cr*p.

[biglouis]

The most common type of benefit fraud are single mothers who continue to claim benefit when they are cohabiting with a partner. Snitching neighbours are usually on the watch for this.

[mick607]

Dodgy ebay sellers too who use multiple identities & the tax man gets jack sh!t.

[Goingtoseed]

Dodgy ebay sellers too who use multiple identities & the tax man gets jack sh!t.

Including anyone that is either claiming and receiving Carers Allowance or has an entitlement  to it. I really do wonder how many carers buy and sell on Ebay that (a) do not inform HMRC that they are running a part time business and (b) those that fail to tell the Carers Unit (DWP) that they have an undisclosed income that could well mean the loss of that benefit?

[mick607]

Including anyone that is either claiming and receiving Carers Allowance or has an entitlement  to it. I really do wonder how many carers buy and sell on Ebay that (a) do not inform HMRC that they are running a part time business and (b) those that fail to tell the Carers Unit (DWP) that they have an undisclosed income that could well mean the loss of that benefit?

It's ok to work full time & claim PIP but I know of a woman who worked 16 hours a day 5 days a week then the DWP investigated & cancelled her award also having to repay the DWP £16k. She was prosecuted.

[Goingtoseed]

It's ok to work full time & claim PIP but I know of a woman who worked 16 hours a day 5 days a week then the DWP investigated & cancelled her award also having to repay the DWP £16k. She was prosecuted.

Yes you can work AND claim DLA/PIP. However if the DWP get wind of it and they believe that the working creates a doubt as to the accuracy of the claim, they will cancel the award and demand that what has been paid is returned to them as well as go for a prosecution.


It's very much like someone who claims to suffer from depression and anxiety, pain as well as being unable to walk more than 20 metres yet has a Motability car.
The DWP would argue that the mere fact of being able to drive a car - using your legs and having sufficient mental awareness and ability to drive safely, could well mean that they should not be having the DLA/PIP award in the first place.


That argument has been used many times by the DWP when the claimant has opted for an appeal to be heard by the Tribunal Service.