Our regular loss prevention and store detection contributor Peter Whitehead turns to the topic of those store loss pervention people who seem to have a sixth sense – an instrinct – a nose – well, let Peter explain.
If an accurate description of a criminal-type can be produced then it is much more easy for police and retailers to watch for and catch or deter it. Experienced police, customs, and private security officers and so on can become acutely sensitive to particular conditions, actions, documents and people, which trigger their attention and reactions. But the problem about concentrating these sometimes amazing abilities into an educational compilation is that these operatives are often unable to give enough information about their ‘super-senses’.
I once worked part-time with Andy, an ex-rifleman, in a two-person store detective team. During that time he developed a super-sense for focusing upon and catching one of the many types of refund deception criminals. I could occasionally catch such fraudsters in what I call ‘fall over’ incidents: that is, incidents stumbled upon by accident during observations in anticipation of other crimes. But my colleague could often focus upon these criminals very early, sometimes before they even entered the store. Some readers may feel that this is also easy for them, but I never met any person so finely tuned in this intangible and almost untransferable sensitivity.
This initial focus upon refund fraudsters caused the detention of some very clever people. It is hard to detect a refund fraud where a person buys an expensive item on quiet-Tuesday and returns to the store on, say, busy-Friday with the genuine receipt and selects a similar item for refund. In this particular type of deception theft, many store staff and store detectives may never focus upon these criminals because their actions are ‘regular shopper’ and unfurtive. Even if followed through, interest might be dropped as the ‘customer’ takes the selected items to the tills, queues and begins the transaction. My colleague’s ability broke into an amazing new field of crime which we could ‘harvest’. Detainees included a local store manager and an accountant among a long list of usually affluent people. As a trainer I was interested in my colleague’s aptitude but I never did feel that I had gathered more than a fraction of his talent in this area. Here is a list of some of the actions and conditions that could be seen, after he had ‘picked up’ on the suspected fraudster.
From CCTV records we discovered that during the initial genuine purchase transaction they choose a quiet trading time and make more conversation with the till operators than usual; to be remembered more easily a few days later when they commit the refund crime. They prefer stores which do not have a large clear space separating entrance doors from displays, and since most stores today are cramming goods closer and closer to their entrances, this is no longer a problem for fraudsters. Before entry to store they tend to produce, look at and pocket the crime receipt, possibly to feel comfortable about its position and presence.
They usually stand outside, as if waiting for somebody, but this is to join any group of people entering the store and so reduce their ‘entry profile’. They look slightly downwards during the journey from entrance to store displays and soon turn away from the ‘entry group’. After this they revert to confident-shopper appearance. They carry a bag large enough to hold the item which they will attempt to refund, but of course this bag will never be used…. it is simply there to explain that this is how they brought the refund item back to the store. Without this they could expose themselves more easily to CCTV evidence. They tend to dress more smartly than average, and always select other items for purchase as well as the item for refund. They do not tend to try to place the ‘refund’ item into their own bag, but leave it in trolley or basket, so security personnel never actually see any ‘pre-crime’ activity such as concealment, whilst check-out staff tend to assume that the item has been removed from the bag to show to them. When they reach the checkouts they will choose the same till operator that served them a few days before, offer their selections for purchase and explain that they have returned the item for refund-deception, and give a plausible reason. When the check-out operator has inspected the item and asked for the receipt, the fraudster will look in several pockets, appearing as if frustrated, before ‘finding’ the receipt. You can actually see checkout operators relaxing as it is produced.
And at this point the fraudsters can mention that they think that the till operator actually served them originally, and often all reserve and caution falls away as the till operator remembers this. Often these fraudsters will suggest that a credit would be sufficient, because they do not commit this crime professionally for income, but simply for free acquisition of expensive items. The transaction is completed and the fraudsters leave, having been given back the cost of the item they purchased a few days before. And if a security person was to watch this, there are not many clues to pick up on.
It could be that Andy’s hunches were caused by previous sightings of the same person during previous scams, but whatever it was that ‘triggered’ his interest, he could only describe this as ‘instinct’. I am not suggesting that these criminals are the cause of Britain’s four billion pound retail crime chaos, but I am saying that intelligent dishonest people can discover some very clever scams which help towards free supply of expensive items, from rechargeable drills to printers, from hard-drives to slow-cookers. This article is not just about a particular type of petty repeat-refund deception; it can be about terrorists, robbers, burglars, false accountants and more, all who can be ‘seen’ by specialists who sadly are too few to really make a big difference. We need to discover those genuine specialists and attempt to identify the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of their ‘instincts’ for transference to others. That is tragically very difficult: The genuine ‘super-sense’ operatives are often obscured by the many who claim such ability, and once found these specialists can find it hard to tell us what it is that ‘triggers’ them. I have heard phrases such as ‘you just get to know’, ‘it’s instinctive’, ‘I can’t put my finger on it’ many times, from brilliant operatives whose skills are based upon intuitions.
