One of the more endearing features of the Home Office minister for security Dan Jarvis is that he begins a speech with some light-hearted remarks. So it was at a dinner at Drapers Hall in the City of London when he spoke about fraud and cyber crime to the City of London Police Authority Board; which does what police and crime commissioners or elected mayors do elsewhere, and oversees the police in the City.
The City force has a national remit for fraud (‘economic crime’). Jarvis remarked first about the history of the venue (and how can anyone at a grand City building not do so?) and about an altogether harsher era politically when King Henry VIII didn’t re-shuffle his ministers – he had Thomas Cromwell executed. Arguably the most telling remark came while Jarvis described something of the experience of being a minister during a government re-shuffle; ‘that does mean you spend all weekend answering the phone to private numbers’ (in other words, the Number Ten switch-board) to learn if he’s moving jobs (or no longer a minister). That means sales calls, and outright frauds (‘I’m really glad to hear about your win in the Ugandan state lottery, but I’m not sure I understand why it has to be paid into my bank account’). In other words, on everyday means of communication, fraud attempts are rife; taken for granted; and no-one bothers to report them to the authorities.
Jarvis went on to explain how the Labour Government was progressing on countering fraud – a new strategy is coming out (are more words really called for?). It’s been a trope of government for 60 years to say that crime in general or a particular crime is for more than the police and state to handle; and Jarvis duly said ‘the issues we are grappling with demand a whole-of-society approach’. That at the same time acknowledges that businesses are suffering (Jarvis noted ‘large-scale attacks on M&S and Jaguar Land Rover’) and can do things to help themselves and others that the police cannot; and shares the responsibility. Some things, however, only the police and state can do; record reports of crimes, and act on them. The previous Labour Government of the 2000s set up Action Fraud, which took the fielding of fraud (the UK’s biggest volume crime, remember, as Jarvis acknowledged – ’44 per cent of all offences reported to the Crime Survey’) off police forces. Action Fraud became much unloved; those setting it up did point out they did not promise a fraud reported to the service would actually lead to any particular outcome. Hence tucked away in Boris Johnson’s crime strategy of July 2021 (you see what I mean about how strategies are plentiful), was a mention of a new (and presumably better) version of Action Fraud.
To return to Jarvis’ speech: “We are developing the new report fraud service to make it easier for victims to access help and support.” Note that nothing was promised about collaring more criminals, who could be ringing, sending texts and emails, from anywhere on the planet.
Four years after Johnson’s announcement, deadlines for the new version of Action Fraud (including a new name) have been and gone; and no sign of it. The City of London Police Commissioner Pete O’Doherty (given fulsome praise by Jarvis in his speech) in a policing plan annual report 2024-25 to the Board in May spoke of ‘The replacement system for Action Fraud (FCCRAS) progressed rapidly during 2024 with implementation of parts of the new system. The new system will deliver a more streamlined journey for victims, and a significantly increase [sic] capability to identify and pursue offenders.’
FCCRAS incidentally is short for the uninspiring ‘Fraud and Cyber Reporting and Analysis Service’. Meanwhile, as a report to the Economic Security and Cyber Crime Committee of the City of London Police Authority Board, the day before Jarvis’ speech, noted, ‘the transition to the new operating system’ in early 2025 meant ‘service issues continue, resulting in downtime and latency problems’, for the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, which receives reports from Action Fraud. Police ‘anticipate this reduction in performance to continue into the new year as we continue to transition to the new service’. In other words, service is getting worse, before it might get better.
The Board is supposed to hold its local force to account. However in his foreword to O’Doherty’s report, Board chair Tijs Broeke (also praised by Jarvis) said blandly that the City force ‘continued the development of its next generation fraud and cyber-crime reporting service’, and for no reason described it among ‘successes’.
Jarvis did acknowledge those being defrauded (‘the individual stories that lie behind those numbers which are so devastating’). Among the metrics for Action Fraud, it deems itself to have met a Home Office target of ‘victim satisfaction’ whether those who have been defrauded report to Action Fraud by telephone or online (going to a police station in person and speaking to a human police officer about such a crime no longer being an option). Even though, ‘call abandonment’ was at 18 per cent. In other words, more than one in six people gave up before they got to the end of reporting what they had wanted to; what would the country be like, if one in six people who have broken limbs, gave up reporting to a NHS line?!
As featured in the August edition of Professional Security Magazine, the UK has been making diplomatic efforts to go after fraudsters in their home country, as Jarvis mentioned (‘we have been working closely with international partners including the UAE and India’). That does beg questions; such as, what’s in it for those countries to fight a crime that doesn’t affect their nationals.
It may prove significant that Jarvis like others used a medical metaphor about these crimes (‘the fraud epidemic is continuing to spread’). Might, ever so gradually, the authorities inch us towards fraud no longer being treated as a crime at all, but a regrettable, decriminalised fact of life, like begging?
