Episode 9 Claimed and Shamed

Insurance fraud in the UK is reaching epidemic levels

and it's costing us billions of pounds every year.

Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injury claims, even phantom pets.

The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing.

And every year, it's adding up to £50 to your insurance bill.

Insurers are fighting back armed with covert surveillance systems...

Subject out the vehicle.

..sophisticated data analysis techniques

and highly skilled dedicated police units...

Police, don't move! Stay where you are!

..they're catching the criminals red-handed.

All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle,

now they're caught in the act and claimed and shamed.

A high-speed tangle leads to an opportunistic fraud attempt.

There was no question - and the CCTV footage proved it.

A specialist police force challenges their suspect.

From what you say, we're not going to see anything in this car, right?

And an insurer discovers where £1 million worth

of fraudulent cash has gone.

We were quite shocked.

What's gone on here? Smashed up cars, police, dozens of onlookers.

It's chaos.

That's because the police car and the small hatchback have just been

involved in a severe collision on this busy North London high street.

The accident occurred

on 21st February 2011 in Green Lanes in Haringey.

A very busy road.

The aftermath of the accident was quite chaotic.

There were lots of people milling around.

The fire engines are there,

the ambulance is there treating some of the injured parties.

What we can see is there are three vehicles that have been

damaged in that impact.

The third vehicle involved in the crash is the large black saloon car.

It was sat in the parking bay at the time of the collision.

The small hatchback ploughed into it after tangling with the police car.

Amongst the carnage, the car's driver,

in the white hooded top, can be seen inspecting his mangled motor.

He then wanders over to talk to a police officer.

The person that's parked the vehicle at the roadside

clearly approaches the police in the footage

and one can assume that they're asking about

when their vehicle can actually be moved away from the crash.

He's not just worried about the vehicle.

He was in the stationary car at the time of the incident.

He also had a passenger with him, seen wandering around the wreckage.

The two men, Mehmet Ali Gul

and Turan Korkmaz, suffered injuries as a result of the whack.

Soon after the incident,

Gul and Korkmaz both submitted personal injury claims against

the insurance of the hatchback driver, who was supposedly at fault.

We had claims for a whiplash injury and for treatment

for physiotherapy that they'd had as a result of the accident.

The two claims that we had for the alleged people in the vehicle

amounted to £2,147 apiece.

In total, the insurer was facing a £4,294 bill. The paperwork began.

But this was no ordinary claim.

It involved a police vehicle,

and because of that, the claims process hit a problem.

We needed to make some further enquiries

as specific allegations had been made

regarding the fact that the car hadn't been using its blues and twos.

Blues and twos is industry speak for lights and siren.

If the police car hadn't been using its blues and twos,

arguments on liability for the crash could have taken place.

The insurer had to check the allegation.

They contacted Haringey Council, as they had a CCTV camera

positioned near the crash site which captured the whole event.

If the police car had been travelling at speed

without its blues and twos on, the footage would tell them.

When the insurer watched the footage, this is what it saw.

A very busy road, lots of buses around,

lots of people milling around.

In the distance, you can see a police vehicle approaching.

It was quite evident that the lights were on.

The allegation that the police car didn't have

its blues and twos on was wrong.

The CCTV captures the whole event perfectly.

The driver of the hatchback seemed to be at fault.

Currently hidden behind the white van,

the hatchback is about to cause mayhem.

Unfortunately, there is a collision between our policy holder

and the police vehicle.

The subsequent impact that happened

with the parked vehicle is significant.

The insurer of the small hatchback would have to pay up

for the whiplash injuries suffered by Gul and Korkmaz,

who are about to get out of the stationary car.

They're probably a bit shocked, they'll be out in a moment.

Any second now.

No, they won't and that's because...

When you study the CCTV footage, it's evident that the two claimants

are nowhere near the vehicle at the time that the incident happens.

Turan Korkmaz and Mehmet Ali Gul first arrive on scene

two minutes after the crash.

There's the driver jogging up the road towards

his bashed-up motor, followed by his pretend passenger.

Both whiplash claims had been opportunistic attempts to

make money out of a life-threatening event.

You see them approaching from quite a considerable distance away.

There is no way that those two men could have

been in the car at the time of the crash. There was no question.

The CCTV footage proved it.

Korkmaz and Gul weren't

going to get away with a free shot at the insurer.

When we repudiated the claims, we decided it was time to report it

to the police so that they could consider a prosecution.

The footage was conclusive evidence.

Both Turan Korkmaz and Mehmet Ali Gul received a three-month

suspended sentence and 120 hours community service.

I think it would be quite surprising to any fraudster

as to the technology

and the pooling of resources that is now happening

within the insurance industry

to make sure these fraudulent claims come to an end.

Fraudulent claims like this are costing the honest policy-holder

around £50 on their premium every single year.

The industry, insurers, the police, are all working together to try

and make sure these people are prosecuted where necessary

and brought to justice.

A fraudulent couple's jet-set lifestyle gives the game away.

The couple spend an awful lot of time going on holiday or

going to the airport.

And the owner of a pink limo won't back down on price.

The vehicle was quite a tatty vehicle, actually.

CCTV has proven indispensible in the fight against insurance fraud.

But there are times

when more unlikely methods uncover the scammers.

This is Miss Jaksone, a single mother, who, back in 2009,

was doing her best to make ends meet by holding down a full-time job

whilst also looking after two kids.

Britain has two million single-parent families.

Bringing up a child on your own can be tough,

not least of all financially.

Luckily there's help at hand in the form of tax credits.

Tax credits, pension credits

and benefits in general are designed for those

who are really in need of financial help to top up

the earnings of someone who is on a low income or with childcare costs.

Miss Jaksone, despite her efforts,

relied upon the help of the tax credit system.

Miss Jaksone was claiming to be a single mother on a very low

income of around £6,000 a year.

She was claiming that she was working full-time

and, in addition to that, she had high childcare costs.

Money was tight for the full-time working mum.

But the tax credit system would help keep their heads above water.

In order to make sure that tax credits are reaching

the people who need them most,

HMRC do regular random checks on tax credit recipients.

In 2009, Miss Jaksone's name came up for one such check.

Her tax credits claim was selected for a routine

examination by a tax credits inspector.

During this routine examination, the inspectors made some

surprising discoveries about the financially stretched single mum.

It turned out she wasn't single.

She was still living with the father of her children - Gagik Manucharyan.

The HMRC inspectors felt there was more to be discovered.

We put the couple under covert surveillance for around three months.

This established that the couple spent an awful lot of time

shopping and going on holiday, going to the airport.

Not the usual movements of a hard up parent receiving tax credits.

What was going on?

HMRC were determined to get to the bottom of it.

There came a time where we decided we had to resort to traditional

techniques and we obtained a warrant.

We went through the front door early one morning in October 2009 and arrested the suspects.

So what did HMRC discover from the raid at Jaksone and Manucharyan's address?

The couple were living quite an extravagant lifestyle.

The couple lived in this...

They drove a couple of these...

And they did indeed enjoy the odd holiday...

We discovered that Miss Jaksone had a lifestyle well beyond what

her declared means were.

She had recently purchased a property for around £365,000,

with £150,000 going down as a deposit on it.

In addition to that, she had recently taken out a loan

on a £56,000 Mercedes motorcar.

They spent a lot of time on holiday at locations across the world.

The couple had been enjoying the kind of luxuries

that are out of reach of most tax credit recipients.

Over a three-year period, they had spent a lot of the taxpayers' money.

Between 2006 and 2009,

Jaksone was able to obtain £56,000 in tax credits.

Additionally, via her Latvian mother, she set up a fraudulent claim

to generate £27,000 in pension credits and winter fuel payments.

That makes a total of £83,000

in benefits fraudulently obtained from HMRC.

But the figures did not add up.

The house alone was worth four times as much as that.

Where were the fraudsters getting the rest of the money from?

Bank statements seized during raid held a clue.

The couple were receiving significant amounts of cash deposits

into their account from locations all over the UK.

It was discovered that there were deposits linked to payments

to a large insurer.

Looking for specialist help,

HMRC invited the insurer to aid in the investigation.

When HMRC found this information they knew that

they were on to some other type of fraud that this couple were

involved in, but I don't think they really understood the full

extent of the criminal activity that Jaksone and Manucharyan had

been undertaking in the insurance industry.

Jaksone and Manucharyan had been

running an illegal insurance racket.

A criminal practice known as ghost broking.

Ghost broking is a term used for an illicit insurance broker who

falsifies details to take out bogus insurance policies

on behalf of drivers.

If involved in an accident, their innocent customers could find

they don't have valid insurance.

Jaksone and Manucharyan were ghost broking on a massive scale.

When we started to uncover the size of the fraud that had taken place

we were quite shocked.

In total, the couple had sold over 1,500 policies,

leaving in their wake

hundreds of customers without valid insurance.

We really realised what we were dealing with

when we had to print out 30,000 pages of documentation to cover

the extent of the fraud that Jaksone and Manucharyan had been

committing just with the Direct Line group let alone any of the

other insurers that they had also been placing illegal policies with.

And also the point where we had to set up special call lines to

deal with the impact that they'd had on innocent victims.

After three years of fleecing innocent customers, the couple

had made almost £1 million from their illegal insurance business.

Add to that the £82,000 of fraudulently obtained benefits

and it is easy to see how they lived the high life.

That was feeding a criminal lifestyle which left

Manucharyan and Jaksone living a life of comfort and privilege

while their victims were

driving around in vehicles which were uninsured.

Having committed both benefit and insurance fraud, Jaksone

and Manucharyan were facing a double whammy in court.

Manucharyan received five years and two months imprisonment,

that was broken down into three years for insurance fraud

and two years two months for tax fraud.

Jaksone received five years in prison

and that was broken down into two years for insurance fraud and two

years and two months for tax fraud and 18 months for benefit fraud.

We have got powers available to us

under the Proceeds of Crime Act to recover any assets that

criminals have obtained from involvement in criminal activity.

In this particular case,

we'll look to recover what we can from these defendants.

As a result of the actions of people like Jaksone and Manucharyan

we're all paying more money,

at a time when really we can ill afford to pay more

money for our insurance premiums.

For the most part, I would advise people,

if the deal is too good to be true, it probably is.

Insurance fraud is on the rise.

And if you have insurance of any kind, you are footing the bill.

But the fraudsters have an ominous enemy.

IFED is a 35-strong unit that works tirelessly to hunt down

and prosecute insurance fraudsters

wherever they may be throughout England and Wales.

Through a combination of investigation,

industry connections and surprise, they have made over 300 arrests

and stopped millions of pounds from going to the criminals.

Money which ultimately goes back in our pockets.

It is highly likely now that if you commit any insurance fraud,

you will get caught.

Police! Don't move, stay where you are.

Today, IFED is raiding two addresses linked to another

suspected ghost broker.

The two addresses are just a few miles apart.

DS Mullish is with the team going to the main raid location.

The plan today is we're going

to arrest and search the premises of the suspect in relation to what

we suspect he's been involved in, what we call ghost broking.

Key evidence would be computers and any device capable of storing

data together with documentation relating to insurance policies.

IFED rendezvous with the local officer supporting today's raid.

It's 7:49am. The six-strong team enters the suspect's address.

KNOCKS AT DOOR

Hi, good morning. City of London police.

Within seconds, the door is opened.

IFED recognises its suspect.

Anyone else on the premises? Yes, my wife.

Right, we'll explain why we're here.

Yes, sure.

DS Mullish, concerned that the suspect might tip off the other raid

location, decides to round up the suspect's phones.

Where's your mobile phone? Turn those off for me.

Is there a password, a number for this phone?

And for your BlackBerry, is there a password for that? Yes.

All four of the suspect's mobile phones are now switched off.

For the time being, his lines of communication are cut.

Leave that there, I'm going to seize those.

At the second raid location, DC Cooley

and the team are falling into position outside the property.

The IFED team has assistance from two local officers.

Good morning. Morning.

Hello, I'm Inspector Malone from the City of London police.

Certainly. This is my ID. Can I come in and explain?

Yes, please. Please come in.

DC Cooley discovers that the occupant of the property is

the suspect's dad. And that the suspect used to live here.

So does he still have a bedroom here?

I think we'll be particularly interested in looking at that.

Yes, please. Thanks very much.

Confident that the raid location is safe,

IFED dismisses the local officers.

Good luck, gents. See you.

DC Cooley and DC Malone head upstairs

to begin a search for potential evidence

in the suspect's old bedroom.

They start with the big stuff - computers.

You were saying that this computer here

had been used by BLEEP at some point.

Yeah, he used it before.

I think we are going to have to take that hard drive. Sure, why not.

The computer is seized

and its contents will be analysed by IFED's specialist IT investigators.

The first piece of potential evidence is in the bag.

DS Mullish warns his suspect against doing a runner.

Yeah, 100%.

He is very fast.

What a stunner!

16 seats, fibre-optic mood lighting, flatscreen TVs,

a glitter ball, and even a skylight to pop up from

when you want to whoop at boring people not invited to your party.

It is not the kind of vehicle that you nip to the shops in.

But you could run a business hiring it out to revellers.

That's what one man was doing with his 16-seater Lincoln Navigator.

Pictured here.

The claimant had purchased the vehicle

for job purposes and was using it for private hire and parties

and all the usual social activities

that take place within the limousine.

Cruising around in an eye-catching motor seems like a good way

to make a living.

So, you can imagine the owner's disappointment when his pink

cash cow was taken off the road after being involved in a collision.

This was a straightforward road traffic accident

whereby our insured had come out of a minor road,

exited onto a roundabout and straight into a collision with the limousine.

Straightforward or not, the damage was severe.

The damage to the limousine was allegedly quite extensive to

the off side of the vehicle and also to the near side, its front bonnet.

The claimant's solicitors had organised for an engineer to inspect

the vehicle and the engineer's report indicated a value of £21,000.

The extent of the damage rendered the vehicle a write-off, a total loss.

The insurer set about processing the claim for the limo owner.

The paperwork was well under way

when suddenly the insurer halted the claim.

An inconsistency had been spotted.

The owner alleged that he needed a replacement vehicle for work purposes

because he was without his limousine but very oddly,

rather than replacing his limousine with a like-for-like vehicle,

which you would expect he would need for the prestige jobs

that he indicated that he needed to do, he hired a Mercedes C Class.

Now this is maths I can handle.

The damaged pink limo had 16 passenger seats.

A Mercedes C Class - no more than four.

If the owner of the party vehicle business was using

the Merc for work,

he was regularly leaving 12 party animals stranded on the kerbside.

With suspicions aroused, the insurer went looking for hard facts

and figures.

We decided to undertake a further examination of the vehicle.

The findings were surprising.

The vehicle was quite a tatty vehicle,

for the interior purposes

and certainly not one you would expect to be out on prestige jobs

for parties and obviously those ladies who like pink limousines.

The assessor had come back to say that in his opinion

the vehicle was only worth £4,800 as opposed to the £21,000.

The insurer's valuation of the vehicle

was a fraction of the amount being claimed.

However, the limo owner wouldn't back down from his £21,000

valuation of the vehicle. But his resistance was about to be broken.

The insurer discovered the limo owner had taken out

his insurance policy just a month before the crash.

When the claimant had incepted his policy of insurance

for the limousine just one month prior to this incident,

he had indicated to insurers that his value of the limousine was £10,000.

So the limo owner himself had declared that the car was

worth no more than £10,000.

Less than half of the £21,000 he was trying to claim for it.

The game was up.

It is incredibly important that we stop exaggerated claims.

Opportunistic claims make up the bulk of fraudulent claims

and it is costing the innocent motorist money.

The pink limo owner ended up settling

for a tiny fraction of the £21,000 he had been chasing.

Saving every honest motorist from unnecessarily paying out

more for their vehicle insurance.

The Association of British Insurers indicated that last year alone

£19 million worth of fraud was uncovered from motor accidents.

It is a huge problem in this economic climate to have insurance premiums

increase because of this type of exaggeration.

Today IFED is executing a double raid.

It is searching two addresses linked to a man suspected of selling

false insurance policies.

DS Mullish... Turn those off for me.

..having cut the suspect's lines of communication...

Is there a password for this phone?

..is ready to begin a thorough research for potential

evidence of fraudulent activity.

Is there any documentation that you could point us towards

in relation to insurance policies?

I'll try to dig some stuff up.

The suspect responds to DS Mullish's request by handing over a clear

plastic box full to the brim with documents.

Almost immediately his attention is drawn to a bright-red

vehicle registration document.

This document I am about to seize is of particular interest because it

relates to the suspected fraudulent name of a company or business.

The name on this document is the exact name of what

we believe the suspect has been operating under.

Potentially a key bit of evidence, yes.

Hmm.

A few miles away, DC Cooley is studying documents found

in the suspect's old bedroom at his father's house.

He has a lot to get through.

DC Cooley thinks he is on to something.

Within the mass of paperwork

he finds what could be damning evidence of fraud.

Now, this is interesting.

It is a letter written by the suspect to an insurance company

clarifying the position on somebody else's insurance policy.

The suspect is not registered with the Financial Services Authority.

This means that it is illegal for him to act as a broker.

He even cheekily claims that the police stopped him

on the street and then verified that the insurance was correct.

DC Cooley and DC Malone have finished their search.

Seize it all.

The documents and computers seized

will be added to the exhibits found at the suspect's house.

Back at the suspect's property, the search is about to move outside.

The team decide to take a look for themselves.

Before heading outside, DS Mullish has a warning for the suspect.

Yeah, 100%.

He is very fast. I am even faster.

This is it, is it? If you don't mind just standing.

Nothing is found in the black vehicle.

Before searching the second car,

DS Mullish double-checks with the suspect about its contents.

From what you say, we're not going to see anything in this car. Yeah.

If you want to stay there. Sure.

DS Mullish doesn't have to go any further than the glove compartment

before finding potential evidence of fraud.

Steve, did you bring any bags?

The document seized from the suspect's vehicle is a copy

of an insurance document in another person's name, other than the suspect.

The search is complete.

IFED takes the suspect away for further questioning.

Put your seat belt on for us.

We have had a great result today.

We have found the suspect at the address.

We have found great evidence and we have also...

Where we simultaneously executed a warrant at another address,

we have also found relevant documentation there.

Very good evidence to support our investigation.

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd