Inter-agency work and the UK public sector investigation of fraud, 1996–2006: joined-up rhetoric and disjointed reality

Abstract

Most policing activity in the area of UK public sector fraud is undertaken not by the police but by departmental investigators. This article explores the shifting rhetoric and on-the-ground efforts to escape departmental silos in order to address ‘the problem of fraud’ and fraudsters more efficiently and effectively via ‘joined up working’. These public sector reforms have been promoted principally by the National Audit Office and government. It reveals that these efforts have generally been modest in practice, because they have gone against the grain of departmental objectives and cultures. In the context of these experiences, the prospects for change in public–public and public–private partnerships are explored in the light of the UK government Fraud Review and the National Fraud Strategic Authority.

Keywords:

• fraud
• police
• joined-up working
• financial investigation
• tax
• social security

Acknowledgement

Professor Levi is grateful for the ESRC Professional Fellowship RES-051-27-0208, under whose auspices this article was written.

Notes

1. There are analogies in other countries, such as the US Inspectorates General, but these will not be discussed here.

2. For a recent illustration of differential approaches to ‘hidden economy’ prosecutions by HMC and DWP, see Public Accounts Committee (2008).

3. The latter two bodies subsequently merged to form Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), though some HMCE staff joined the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). The research for this article includes literature reviews, desk reviews and interviews. In addition, the authors advised the National Audit Office (NAO) on ‘the effectiveness of the three Departments’ involvement in joint action against fraud. They developed a set of questions on joint action for the study team to use, examined relevant information obtained by the National Audit Office and carried out interviews with the three Departments and a selection of other public and private sector organisations’ (NAO 2003c, p. 55). None of the material from this work appears in this article, but it has informed the authors’ assessments of the published reports on the departments, and has set the context for the research for this article.

4. A categorisation of the National Intelligence Model for criminals that cross police force borders, short of ‘Level 3’ international or very serious crimes for gain that are supposed to be the preserve of the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

5. ‘Financial crime’ includes not just fraud but also generic money laundering and proceeds of crime recovery.