Cyber Security: Dating Fraud Reported Once Every Three Hours

One incident of dating fraud is now being reported around every three hours, according to an initiative warning of the dangers of con artists preying on people looking for romance.

Around seven reports of dating fraud on average are received every day by Action Fraud, the national fraud reporting service, equating to around one every three hours.

Typically, victims will make their first transfer of money to the fraudster within a month of contact. The average victim of dating fraud loses £10,000 according to the findings released ahead of Valentine’s Day on Tuesday.

The figures were released as Victim Support, Age UK, the City of London Police, London Metropolitan Police and Get Safe Online said they would work in partnership with the Online Dating Association in efforts to better understand how fraudsters operate and reduce the number of people falling victim to dating fraud.

Tips for people using dating websites and apps using the hashtag #datesafe will be shared online.

Tony Neate, CEO of Get Safe Online, said that while many couples do meet online, the problem of cyber criminals targeting people for significant financial gain is growing.

He said: “£10,000 is a staggering amount for the average online dater to lose to a fraudster who they’ve been led to believe is the real deal. It’s not just the financial loss though; dating fraud can have a huge emotional impact on a victim too.”

He said in some cases, people had lost everything – including their savings and their homes.


Coalition Against Insurance Fraud – Arsonist to insurers: Check fire claims more closely


Closer look deters arsonists, discovers scams, benefits all policyholders

Kenny Allen was a likable fellow. He went to church, coached youth basketball in the Muncie, Ind. area, and was making his way through life with limitless potential ahead.

He also lived in a secret world: He was an insurance thief. Kenny was a driving force behind the largest home arson ring in Indiana history. And one of the largest ever in the U.S. His gang helped torch at least 73 buildings while he sang hymns of righteousness in pews.

Insurers were easy to defraud, Allen says. Their adjusters were so intent on making customers happy — he contends — that they rarely asked tough questions. Insurers could’ve quickly exposed the claims for burned homes as money grabs with a little more effort.

Kenny went straight after nearly five years in federal prison. He admits he screwed up, and today gives workshops for investigators to help make amends. He partners with Mike Vergon, the former ATF agent who arrested him. They’re friends and supporters in life — a touching story of Kenny’s redemption.

Yet his saga speaks to a bigger dilemma for insurers. If they investigate too many claims too closely, they risk policyholders thinking they’re cold and money-grubbing.

If insurers let too many suspect claims slide through too easily, they risk being prey for hunters like Kenny was. This slippery slope can grow fraud losses, help raise premiums and — yes — reinforce a belief among many consumers that insurers are cold and money-grubbing.

Life isn’t always fair when you’re an insurance company, no matter how many good deeds you perform. Corporations are targets of consumer upset simply because they’re big and make money.

Checking closely into suspicious claims can trigger a lot of emotions. Fair or not, people’s feelings of aggrievement or entitlement can quickly damage an insurer’s reputation. Especially when viral social posts can reach millions of sympathetic consumers in just hours.

Over the longterm, it’s a risk worth taking, and a story worth telling.

Insurers should do a far better job of telling people why they fight fraud — and why all policyholders benefit.

Being justifiably known for protecting policyholders from thieves seems like a pretty good way to build a business brand. And doing right by consumers.

If Kenny Allen’s right, taking the easy way out could’ve cost insurers more than millions in false arson claims. He’s the first to admit, it’s a miracle nobody died in his fires.

Insurance Fraud Advocacy : Inspector General in New York named “Fraud Fighter of the Year”

Award bestowed by New York Alliance Against Insurance Fraud

March 16, 2016, New York, NY — Cited for an aggressive campaign to counter workers-compensation scams throughout the state, New York Inspector General Catherine Leahy Scott was honored with the “Fraud Fighter of the Year” award by the New York Alliance Against Insurance Fraud.

The award was presented during NYAAIF’s recent annual meeting held here.

NYAAIF Chair Jim Berrigan credited the IG’s leadership in compiling an impressive record of prosecuting wide-ranging workers-compensation cases. They included fraud by claimants, medical providers and businesses.

“The IG’s efforts put teeth behind our anti-fraud marketing campaigns in providing valuable deterrence though public awareness and vigorous prosecution,” Berrigan said in presenting the award. He also commended Scott for reaching out and working with insurers to identify fraud trends and develop strategies to counter them.

NYAAIF also previewed its 2016 consumer campaign. It will include TV & radio ads, billboards and a roaming “Fraud Squad” van plastered with anti-fraud messages. The campaign theme is “Insurance Fraud Hurts . . . Everyone.” It launches in May.

Frank Orlando, head of the fraud unit of the state Department of Financial Services, briefed fraud fighters on no-fault fraud trends in the state. The Massachusetts Insurance Fraud Bureau profiled a huge automobile rate- evasion ring that operated in New York and Massachusetts.

NYAAIF also elected four members to three-year board terms: Jim Potts (New York Central Mutual), Frank Sztuk (Hanover Insurance), Ken Jones (Travelers) and James Egner (Farmers Insurance).

NYAAIF is an alliance of 104 insurance companies in New York. NYAAIF was created in 1999 to educate consumers about the cost of insurance fraud and help consumers avoid becoming victims.


Fraud Labs Pro Fraud Detection and Fraud Detection Solutions: How is the sequence of execution of fraud validation rules?

FraudLabs Pro allows user to configure multiple fraud validation rules with multiple actions, such as Approve, Manual Review, and Reject. But, how is the sequence of execution if I had configured multiple validation rules with different actions? Below are the explanations of the execution logic.

FraudLabs Pro adopts an easy-to-understand sequential checking for the validation rules. It basically checks the validation rules starting from the 1st rule to the last one in the sequence. If the system found the match during the sequential check, it will stop the checking process and flag the transaction based on the action defined. However, if the system completed the sequential check with no match found, it will flag the transaction as Approve. It’s as simple as explained. Below is the summary of the validation logic:

  • If match found during the sequential check, stop the checking process and flag the transaction based on the action defined, such as Approve, Manual Reviewor Reject.
  • If sequential check completed with no match found, flag the transaction as Approve.

Example of validation scenarios.

Example of the fraud validation rules

Assuming you created 3 validation rules for Free Email, Email in Blacklist and Anonymous Proxy as above. (Note: to ease the explanation, this tutorial will not display the exact rule name but a short representation)

Scenario 1: User’s email address is a yahoo email.

The validation process will be stopped at Rule #1 and the transaction will be flagged as Manual Review.

Scenario 2: User’s email address is a company email but had been previously blacklisted by FraudLabs Pro.

Rule #1 pass the validation. However, the validation process will be stopped at Rule #2 and the transaction will be flagged as Reject.

Scenario 3: User’s email address is a company email with clean record, and not using Anonymous Proxy.

The validation process completed successfully and the transaction will be flagged as Approve.

Global Singapore Visa processing tips – Document Fraud (Misrepresentation)

It is a serious crime to lie, or to send false information or documents, when you deal with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). This is fraud. It is called “misrepresentation.”

Document fraud can involve either false or altered documents, such as:

  • passports and travel documents,
  • visas,
  • diplomas, degrees, and apprenticeship or trade papers,
  • birth, marriage, final divorce, annulment, separation or death certificates, and
  • police certificates.

If you lie on an application or in an interview with a CIC officer, this is also fraud and a crime.

If you send false documents or information, CIC will refuse your application. You could also:

  • be forbidden to enter Canada for at least five years,
  • have a permanent record of fraud with CIC,
  • have your status as a permanent resident or Canadian citizen taken away,
  • be charged with a crime or
  • be removed from Canada.

What CIC is doing to stop immigration fraud

CIC works with our partners to monitor document fraud and train officers around the world. Partners include:

  • the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA),
  • the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and
  • foreign police services and offices that issue identity documents.

CIC is working with the CBSA and the RCMP to phase in biometrics. This means we will use data such as fingerprints to confirm a person’s identity.

Biometrics will make it much harder for people to hide who they are. It will also help reduce identity fraud.