Fraud Indicators: Investigating Cash for Crash
Insurers have always been bedevilled by fraudulent claims. The Insurance Fraud Bureau estimates that general insurance fraud amounts to over two billion every year. In recent years a new form of fraud has developed in the UK. Colloquially known as “cash for crash”, this typically involves organised gangs arranging staged or fictitious car accidents in order to claim considerable personal injury or consequential losses. Often these amount to low speed collisions in vehicles of minimal value and the practice is not identified until there have been multiple claims. This type of fraud is prevalent and difficult to prove. However, there are fraud indicators of which prosecutors must be aware.
Cash for crash fraud can take many forms. Sometimes it involves a concocted accident. What appears to be a genuine collision may be contrived, with all members being party to the conspiracy. Sometimes the conspirators cause an accident deliberately by pulling in front of an innocent motorist and applying their brakes. Whatever the manifestation, cash for crash fraud is not a victimless crime. Insurers are caused substantial loss as they have to settle fraudulent claims and innocent motorists are involved in collisions which affect their safety and their premiums alike.
It is always difficult to prove to the criminal standard that a collision was deliberate. If the same individuals were involved in multiple claims that would give rise to an inference but organised crime is more sophisticated than that. The starting point will always be that a crash was an accident and the mens rea of the driver and his passengers will remain unknown. None of the fraud indicators alone establish a criminal enterprise but, taken together, they may be enough to satisfy a fact finder so that they are sure.
These scams do contain certain hallmarks. Often the policyholder’s vehicle is of low value as the conspirators would not want to place at risk a high value vehicle or incur the increased insurance premiums. The vehicle will almost always be of multiple occupancy to maximise the personal injury and loss of earnings claims. The claims for personal injury will be disproportionate to the accident. A low speed rear end shunt is unlikely to cause whiplash to every person in the vehicle to the extent that they are unable to work for long periods of time. Regularly the emergency services have not attended the accident or, if they have attended, they have noted odd behaviour such as laughter or holding their necks in a theatrical fashion.
Other fraud indicators include those that we would expect to find in a criminal enterprise. Inconsistency between the parties, lack of extraneous detail to their accounts as they have failed to agree upon the finer points of the lie, a collision that takes place late at night or in a secluded location to reduce the risk of independent witnesses or CCTV.
Investigators have a number of lines of enquiry. Of course, defendants may choose to make no comment interviews and refuse to give evidence. Putting the Crown to proof is still a right in English law. However, the records of the insurance company can be relied upon. The initial complaint should be examined. What reason did the parties give for the journey? How do they know each other? Why were they travelling together? What time did they set off? What route did they take? Are they consistent with other? Their accounts can then be investigated. If they claim to be returning from an event then there should be a financial trail to confirm that. If they are on their way somewhere then the details can be checked. Even if the destination is one that needs no advance booking, such as visiting another person, the route taken can be checked to see whether this account is compelling.
Crucially, the reason given for the cause of the collision should be considered. The account is that a pedestrian or an animal ran out into the road then this can be confirmed or refuted by local CCTV. Medical evidence can be seized. Any personal injury claims made to the insurer would have been supported with medical records. It is worth checking the hospital or GP records for inconsistency with the ultimate claim. All entries are not of equal value. The notes of a doctor who examines a patient and finds independent evidence of an injury is clearly more powerful than one who merely records that a patient complains of symptoms of injuries, such as headaches or back pain. Similarly, initial accounts to police or ambulance services should be scrutinised for inconsistencies.
Cell site evidence and mobile phone raw data may be useful to a prosecution. This is particularly the case with suspected contrived accidents where the parties are denying knowledge of each other. Mobile phone downloads may well disprove this claim by showing contact. Cell site evidence may put the parties in close proximity immediately before the journey under scrutiny and increased communication of any kind before the accident will be probative.
The evidence of a forensic engineer expert can also be very useful. Such a witness can consider the damage to both vehicles and comment upon whether it is consistent with the claim made. They are commonly used in the course of civil claims, and prosecutions in the criminal courts would be strengthened by this evidence.
Insurance fraud is prevalent and unscrupulous. It is a highly premeditated offence that attracts deterrent sentences. It brings additional danger to the highways and causes loss to insurers which they ultimately pass on to the consumer through increased premiums. A road traffic accident may look innocent but we should be alive to the fraud indicators rehearsed above.