Transparency data

Joint Fraud Taskforce board minutes: 26 March 2019

Published 23 July 2021

Attendees

• Chair elect: Mike Haley (Cifas)
• Alex Rothwell (City of London Police)
• Adrian Gorham -Communications Crime Strategy Group (Telefonica UK)
• Katy Worobec (UK Finance)
• Alasdair MacFarlane - Financial Crime Committee (RBS)
• James Martin (British Retail Consortium)
• Owen Rowland (Home Office)
• Simon Fell - JFT Secretariat (Cifas)
• Katherine McNulty - JFT Secretariat (Home Office)

Apologies

• Louise Baxter-Scott (NTS)
• Karen Baxter (City of London Police)
• Richard Riley (Home Office)

Agenda item 1: Introductions and welcome

1. Mike Haley (Chair elect, Cifas) welcomed attendees to the first meeting of the reformed JFT Management Board. Given the reduced membership Mike reminded attendees of the need to ensure senior-level attendance at these meetings. Mike also welcomed Adrian Gorham (Communications Crime Strategy Group CCSG) to the Board. Adrian represents the telecommunications industry.

2. Mike emphasised that it was his job as Chair of the Board to facilitate the work of the JFT, with each of us holding each other to account. The JFT is not owned by one organisation, it is all of ours. Mike highlighted that the purpose of the JFT was to tackle volume fraud. This is the volume crime of the 21st century and will grow as problem unless we can take a strategic approach in our efforts to counter it.

Agenda item 2: Home Secretary sign-off for JFT 2.0

3. Mike invited Owen Rowland (Home Office) to provide an update on the Home Secretary sign-off for the reset JFT. Owen stated that advice had gone to the Home Secretary some time ago, but that we still await a decision. He did not anticipate any major objections to the proposal but did mention that the Security Minister has expressed concerned that fraud might get lost in the overarching economic crime governance, and therefore a dedicated Ministerial oversight board might be welcomed.

4. Mike invited views from the Board on a dedicated Ministerial Group. Katy Worobec (UK Finance) considered that the previous JFT Oversight Board was stilted and staged, so was concerned that the same would be true of a new Ministerial Board. She also suggested that the JFT could report into the Economic Crime Delivery Board (public sector group) as a separate fraud Ministerial Group may take fraud out of the wider economic crime discussions. Alasdair MacFarlane (Financial Crime Committee) suggested that a Ministerial Group could be helpful to raise the profile of JFT’s work.

5. Mike summarised the Board’s position. A Ministerial Group could be helpful to raise the profile of JFT work, but it could also impede on the JFT’s move to be more independent. On balance therefore, it would be best for the existing Economic Crime Strategy Board (public and private sector group) to provide oversight, with the Chair of the JFT Management Board sitting on that Board.

Action 1:

Home Office to get the JFT Chair a seat on the ECSB

Agenda item 3: Roles and responsibilities of JFT Management Board

6. Mike stated that he had reached out to the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) to join the JFT Management Board. Attendees agreed to Graham Biggar, DG NECC, joining the group. MasterCard have also asked to join the group. Mike has asked them to consult other providers in the payment infrastructure to see if they can represent the sector. Mike did not think it appropriate for organisations to sit on the Board unless they can represent the views of their sector. Mike did recognise the valuable contribution MasterCard has made to the JFT, and therefore suggested they could be invited to the group for specific items.

7. Mike asked if other industries should be represented on this Board. James Martin (British Retail Consortium) raised whether we should have some victim representation on the Board. The Board considered that the wider JFT Stakeholder Group would be a good place for the victims’ perspective to be fed in. Adrian Gorham (Communications Crime Strategy Group) suggested that the Government lead for ID join the group. Owen stated that he / Richard can represent them.

8. Mike suggested that the insurance sector could join in due course. The group also thought it would be helpful to bring in tech companies (e.g. ISPs and social media platforms). Mike noted that he has reached out to Tech UK to help assist with this, but they don’t represent all ISPs or social-media platforms, and there’s no representative body for the latter. The Board agreed in principle to having ISPs join the wider JFT stakeholder group.

Agenda item 4: Finalising the work programme of JFT 2.0

9. Mike outlined that: Cifas and CoLP will lead the threats work stream; Home Office and UK Finance the legal and regulatory work stream; CoLP and NTS the disruptions work stream; and the Communications Crime Strategy Group (telecoms industry) and the Financial Crime Committee (finance industry) will lead the vulnerabilities work stream.

10. Katy stated that she needed to meet with Richard Riley to develop the legal and regulatory work stream, pointing out that it will need Government to drive much of the work. Owen agreed, highlighting that this work stream should be an enabler of other areas of JFT work.

11. Alasdair outlined plans under the vulnerabilities work stream to firstly baseline current activity. He noted there’s some good work going on already in this area. Alex Rothwell (City of London Police, CoLP) stated that they were conducting a short, sharp review of the collective response work stream (the forerunner for the disruptions work stream). This review will help to determine the model for this work, e.g. whether to adopt a JMLIT style approach. The NECC will be brought into these discussions. Mike stressed the need to keep activity going whilst the review is undertaken.

12. Mike noted that there were some law and accountancy firms who have expressed a desire to be involved in the JFT. He advised work stream leads to contact him to unblock these resources if required.

Action 2:

All work stream leads to determine priority activity, timescales and resource requirements for their work stream and feedback to the next Management Board.

13. Mike asked the Board what JFT’s role should be on anti-fraud campaigns. He thought the JFT should have a role to support Take Five, but there are a variety of other campaigns that we should probably have sight of too. Katy highlighted the need to coordinate campaigns as the different messages can be confusing for consumers. Corralling around Take Five would be a good way of achieving that. Adrian expressed his industry is keen to support Take Five.

14. Owen welcomed the JFT having a coordinating role on Take Five. He mentioned the cyber campaigns, where there’s been greater success in creating a consistent message. The Board considered that the messages in these campaigns (cyber and fraud) need to be aligned.

Action 3:

Cifas, UK Finance and Home Office to develop a proposal on how fraud communications could be more coordinated based upon Take Five.

Agenda item 5: Measuring impact / performance

15. Mike invited Owen to introduce this item. Owen outlined the importance of developing a credible performance framework for the JFT, tied to our threat work. He also mentioned that there’s work underway on economic crime performance more generally, and which this needs to align to. Board members agreed with the importance of this work and James reminded the group of the need to ensure any framework adequately covers the victims’ perspective.

Action 4:

JFT Secretariat to develop a ‘strawman’ performance proposal for the next JFT Management Board.

Agenda item 6: NECC and JFT – Private / Public Threat Update

16. Mike highlighted the work the NECC are doing to develop a private / public economic crime threat assessment. He asked if Board members have been consulted on it.

17. Adrian and James said their sectors haven’t been consulted, and that they both had valuable data and analysis of the fraud threats in their sectors. There was a discussion on the scope and aim of the assessment e.g. is it examining the highest harm threats only? Understanding this will help to determine how and what we feed in on fraud. Mike offered to obtain the Terms of Reference (ToR) for this work. He also suggested that the NECC might want to tap into the JFT Stakeholder Group to help enrich their assessment. Alasdair highlighted the importance of this assessment also looking at future threats, and Adrian endorsed this providing an example of how fraud has migrated to other crimes (e.g. robberies) in his sector. Alex Rothwell also indicated that he could get access to the ToR to provide to the chair.

Action 5:

Mike to obtain ToRs from NECC for their threat assessment work

Agenda item 7: JFT Money Mules focus

18. Mike outlined that the JFT had a central role in tackling this enabling threat. To begin with the threat assessment previously developed by the JFT’s Understanding the Threat group needs to be updated. Mike pressed for this to be done quickly, reminding the group of the need to consult with key partners to get a grip on the evolving threat. Alex agreed to take this back to CoLP with Cifas to support.

Action 6:

CoLP to develop a plan to update the Money Mules threat assessment and discuss with Cifas.

Agenda item 8: HMICFRS report into police response to fraud

19. Owen outlined some of the key findings from the HMICFRS fraud inspection report that will be published on 2 April. He noted that:

• overall it will be critical of the policing response to fraud, but not the model for responding
• there is a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities of the bodies involved in countering fraud
• there is some good fraud prevention activity, but it requires more structure to maximise the benefits – this is where JFT could add real value
• vulnerable victims get a good service, but most victims do not
• the Home Office broadly agrees with the recommendations and welcomes the report

20. Alex noted that the inspection findings give CoLP a refreshed mandate for their National Lead Force role, and for CoLP to drive an effective response with local forces. There was then a decision on monitoring the implementation of HMICFRS’s recommendations. The Board agreed that the JFT can support a more effective policing response, but as there are formal CoLP / Home Office governance structures monitoring delivery, the JFT shouldn’t oversee delivery of the recommendations. Mike suggested that we should highlight the report to the wider Stakeholder Group at the next meeting, inviting input on where JFT efforts can complement an improved policing response. Mike also suggested that the JFT write to the Security Minister to set out what the JFT can do to support.

Action 7:

CoLP to present an item on the HMICFRS report at the next Stakeholder Group.

Action 8:

JFT Secretariat to draft a letter for the Security Minister on areas where JFT can support an improved policing response.

Agenda item 9: AOB

a) UK Finance annual fraud data

21. Katy took the group through UK Finance’s 2018 annual fraud data. She highlighted the following:

• the finance industry prevented £1.66 billion of unauthorised frauds, but criminals still stole £1.2 billion in authorised and unauthorised frauds
• in number terms, Authorised Push Payment (APP) scams are a relatively small problem. But the impact on individuals is high
• data breaches are a significant factor in both unauthorised frauds and APP scams
• these data breaches also assist in fraudsters in socially engineering victims e.g. by using illegal obtained personal details to appear genuine
• incidents of fraud using contactless technology are relatively low, despite some media outlets reporting otherwise

22. Mike thanked Katy for the informative presentation.

b) JFT Stakeholder Group

23. The next JFT Stakeholder Group is scheduled for 16 April. Mike asked if this was too soon given we’re still awaiting sign-off for the new JFT. Mike suggested the Stakeholder Group be moved to 30th May 2019 (the date of the next JFT Management Board), with the Management Board to take place just before. The Board agreed. And that future Management Board and Wider Stakeholder groups should be held on the same day.

Action 9:

JFT Secretariat to amend meeting dates and issue invites to Management Board and Stakeholder Group.