Transparency data

Joint Fraud Taskforce stakeholder group: 29 May 2019

Published 23 July 2021

Attendees

• Chair elect: Mike Haley (Cifas)
• Karen Baxter (City of London Police)
• Louise Baxter-Scott (National Trading Standards)
• John Formby (UK Finance)
• Alasdair MacFarlane - Financial Crime Committee (RBS)
• Richard Riley (Home Office)
• Jerry Tizard (National Economic Crime Centre)
• Neil Masters - JFT Secretariat (Cifas)
• Katherine McNulty - JFT Secretariat (Home Office)
• Owen Rowland (Home Office)
• Alex Rothwell (City of London Police)
• Melissa Dring (National Trading Standards)
• Sara Brown (Victim Support)
• Joel Lewis (Age UK)
• James O’Sullivan (Building Societies Association)
• Mark Haddon (Tesco Bank)
• Paul Rodford (Vanquis)
• Stuart Skinner (Nationwide)
• Judith Crawford (Electronic Money Association)
• Maria Vello (Cyber Defence Alliance)
• Rachel Gentry (Open Banking)
• Michael Cassel (Brent Council)
• Geoff Close (PAY UK)
• Jenny Birch (West Midlands Police)
• Ross Doherty (Vodafone)
• Danny Lawrence (BT)
• Nick Lewis (Standard Chartered)
• Tony Craddock (Emerging Payments Association)
• Andy Wainwright (NEXT)
• Scott Reeve (Cifas)

Agenda item 1: Introductions and welcome

1. Mike Haley (Chair elect, Cifas) welcomed attendees to the first meeting of the Joint Fraud Taskforce (JFT) Stakeholder Group.

Agenda item 2: Introduction to Joint Fraud Taskforce 2.0

2. Mike outlined the new governance and structure of the JFT. Mike then explained the 4 new work streams that will sit under the JFT and the priorities that each will have. The 4 work streams are outlined below.

• a. Work Stream 1 – Understanding the Threat
• b. Work Stream 2 – Vulnerabilities
• c. Work Stream 3 – Legal and Regulatory
• d. Work Stream 4 - Disruptions

3. Mike advised those at the meeting to contact Scott.Reeve@cifas.org.uk or Neil.Masters@cifas.org.uk if they would like to become involved in one of the work streams.

Agenda item 3: HMIC Report into Police Response to Fraud

4. Superintendent Alex Rothwell of City of London Police delivered a presentation outlining the key judgements and recommendations made in the HMIC Report on the Police response to Fraud ‘Fraud Time to Choose’.

5. City of London Police (CoLP) welcomed the report which though critical of the policing response found that the current model of national coordination and local response was sound. CoLP will still own the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) and Action Fraud, with a clear mandate to work with forces to improve their processes, strategy and communication with public and business.

6. Alex outlined the lack of a national strategy within policing for fraud and that work is underway to draft a strategy. Alex also outlined a number of the measures CoLP are undertaking with Forces to respond the recommendations made in the report.

7. A discussion was had around why fraud is not included under the Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR). Richard Riley advised that there are numerous reasons why fraud is not included. For example, Ministers cannot direct police to investigate certain crimes and the local devolution of policing to Police and Crime Commissioners means Chief Constables are accountable for the priorities they set which means fraud is often in competition with crimes such as drugs, people trafficking, and violent crime. The Home Office also believes that fraud is included under the SPR for serious and organised crime. There was broad agreement however that there was work to be done to influence PCCs, Chiefs, and the general public to show how serious a societal issue fraud is.

8. A discussion was had around defining what the key threats facing the UK are and developing clear and consistent messaging to the public supported by coordinated activity to mitigate those threats. It was agreed that work should be undertaken to review existing messaging and campaigns and report back to the Stakeholder Group.

9. There was a discussion around utilising the collective intelligence, technology and systems of partners to enhance the law enforcement response to fraud and capability to investigate.

10. A discussion was had around the service to victims of fraud and the disparity in service between those deemed vulnerable and those that are just ‘victims’. There was an acknowledgement that there is a two tier system in victim response which currently favours those deemed vulnerable which needs to be balanced.

Agenda item 4: Introduction to the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC)

11. Jeremy Tizard provided a presentation on the role of the NECC; the staffing makeup from across law enforcement; team structure and the envisaged interface with the JFT. Jeremy accepted that there was a piece of work that needed to be done with international partners to improve co-ordination where international organised crime groups were concerned to ensure that investigations were joined-up and complementary.

12. Mike Haley summarised the key points of the meeting:

• a. The group agrees that there should be a better policing response to fraud.
• b. There is a local investigative resource gap that police need to address.
• c. That there was appetite from the private sector to input information and intelligence into the NECC.
• d. JFT partner organisations around the table had a role to play in holding Police and Crime Commissioner’s to account to raise the profile of fraud in their areas.
• e. Similarly, that the fact that fraud was not a Strategic Police Priority is something that organisations can raise with the Home Office.
• f. Fraud tech solutions should be considered as part of the fraud “disruption” strategy.
• g. These is a need to influence the government in their deliberations around the Spending Review; one issue worth raising is the lack of a co-ordinated response to victims of fraud; and the suggestion is that a Fraud Protect cadre of officers (not necessary police officers) should be introduced along the line of the Cyber Protect model.

Agenda item 5: Group discussion on the Online Harms White Paper

13. Owing to time constraints Mike Haley referenced the Online Harms White Paper and put to the group a proposal that, unless anyone objected, given that the enablers referenced in the White Paper were also those that would give rise to fraud, he, as Chair designate of JFT would write to the Home Office proposing that fraud should be included within the remit of the White Paper. There were no objections.

Agenda item 6: AOB

14. There was no AOB