Fraud – tougher penalties required?

Fraud is sometimes thought to be a victimless crime - no one gets hurt. Obviously ‘hurt’ is taken at its literal meaning, inferring no physical violence, blood shed or loss of lives. However, fraud is still categorised as a serious crime; it requires deception, intent and, to some extent, a lack of humanity. So why then is prison time for fraud less than other serious crimes. This article looks at a recent case tried at the Old Bailey and questions whether sentencing for fraud is in line with the crime itself.

The fraud was worth approximately ï¿¡1m; there were 8 men involved in a fraud gang, all aged in their 20’s. Their targets were the elderly, one gentleman as old as 94.  Across the country, victims were telephoned by members of the gang who pretended to be police officers conducting a secret investigation.

Once they had their attention, victims were then told their bank accounts had been subject to a fraud and their money was not safe. Now they had gained their trust (and interest), victims were told they could assist with the investigation by withdrawing their money from the bank and pass this onto so called ‘couriers’, who would come to the victims home claiming to be part of the secret investigation.

Many were even made to believe that the bank was part of the fraud, and were prepped by the gang what to tell the bank cashier if questioned about their large withdrawals. Many ended up lying to their families, friends and banks, about where large sums of their money were going. In doing this, the gang managed to completely alienate their victims and continued to steal their life savings. Once alienated and frightened, the gang would harass the victims for more money, persistently calling at all times during the day and night. They did this mercilessly, targeting those who they considered to be vulnerable. This crime took planning and intent.

The 8 men behind this mass scale fraud have been sentenced to a total of 34 years. On the face of it this may sound like a great win for justice, however, the maximum individual sentence received was 7 years. Of this time, he will probably serve only half, and could be released from prison within 3 to 4 years. Others who only received 1 year, could be released by the end of 2016. So the question is: is this long enough? Whilst justice has been done (to an extent), is this enough?

The fraudsters were in their 20’s; when released from prison they will still be in their 20’s. Some could view 6 months in prison to be worth the risk of the continuing to commit fraud, especially if the fraud is lucrative. If sentences were extended and penalties harsher, maybe the thought of a longer prison sentence upon conviction would act as a strong deterrent, at least for second time offenders.

But what about the victims? Not only have they lost their life savings, but they have been cruelly tricked and manipulated. They now have to find a way to rebuild their lives, as well as their savings, and they have to do this in the knowledge that in a few years all of the eight men who defrauded them will be out in the world, possibly looking for their next target.

Sentencing terms for fraud are not long enough. Fraud may not be a necessarily violent crime, but it can still destroy lives. However, this case also shows that more needs to be done to look after and educate the elderly and the vulnerable in our community who often find themselves victims. We can all help with this, check on your older relatives, your elderly neighbour, make sure that they know they can speak to someone if they feel they are being made a victim of fraud. Sometimes knowing there is someone to turn to is the best prevention and protection possible.