0:00:02 > 0:00:05Insurance fraud in the UK has hit epidemic levels.
0:00:05 > 0:00:08It's costing us over £1 billion every year.
0:00:08 > 0:00:11That's almost £3.5 million every day.
0:00:13 > 0:00:16Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries,
0:00:16 > 0:00:19even phantom pets.
0:00:19 > 0:00:23The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing
0:00:23 > 0:00:27and every year it's adding over £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:28 > 0:00:29But insurers are fighting back,
0:00:29 > 0:00:33exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
0:00:33 > 0:00:35Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:35 > 0:00:38That's the subject out the vehicle.
0:00:38 > 0:00:42..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:42 > 0:00:43Police!
0:00:43 > 0:00:45..and a number of highly skilled police units...
0:00:45 > 0:00:47Police! Don't move, stay where you are.
0:00:47 > 0:00:49..they're catching the criminals red-handed.
0:00:49 > 0:00:51Just don't lie to us.
0:00:51 > 0:00:54All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle
0:00:54 > 0:00:57are now caught in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:05 > 0:01:09Today, a massive fraud involving seven bus crashes is kerbed.
0:01:09 > 0:01:12In my time at First Group, this is probably one of the
0:01:12 > 0:01:14biggest frauds I've had to deal with.
0:01:14 > 0:01:19A personal injury claim in a pub is knocked back by camera footage.
0:01:19 > 0:01:21Everybody who looked at the CCTV
0:01:21 > 0:01:23was in actual shock.
0:01:23 > 0:01:27I didn't expect for somebody to be quite so brazen.
0:01:27 > 0:01:30And a landlord's false fire claim combusts at court.
0:01:30 > 0:01:34This is a classic example of a greedy and dishonest
0:01:34 > 0:01:40individual who was hellbent on attempting to elicit monies.
0:01:48 > 0:01:51Insurance fraud is becoming increasingly attractive
0:01:51 > 0:01:53to organised criminal gangs,
0:01:53 > 0:01:57who see it as a way to make a lot of money very quickly,
0:01:57 > 0:02:00with supposedly little risk of being detected.
0:02:00 > 0:02:03But conmen often get caught out by their own greed -
0:02:03 > 0:02:07drawing attention to themselves with minor mistakes or multiple claims.
0:02:11 > 0:02:14Julie Randle is the transportation claims fraud prevention officer
0:02:14 > 0:02:16at FirstGroup.
0:02:16 > 0:02:18She recently worked on a bus case that involved multiple
0:02:18 > 0:02:21personal injuries.
0:02:21 > 0:02:24For 30 passenger claims to come in from a single bus accident,
0:02:24 > 0:02:27we'd expect it to be quite a significant accident
0:02:27 > 0:02:29and we'd expect to see extensive damage to our bus,
0:02:29 > 0:02:31emergency services on scene.
0:02:31 > 0:02:35This was just not one of those accidents.
0:02:35 > 0:02:38According to the internal company file, it was a very minor accident,
0:02:38 > 0:02:43so any compensation costs should have been minimal.
0:02:43 > 0:02:46We would have expected their claims to have been around £7,000.
0:02:46 > 0:02:49This would have been for whiplash, loss of earnings,
0:02:49 > 0:02:53special damages, third party legal costs.
0:02:53 > 0:02:56But the figure of £7,000 seemed out of proportion to the
0:02:56 > 0:02:59small scale of the accident.
0:02:59 > 0:03:03Not long afterwards, FirstGroup found themselves looking into
0:03:03 > 0:03:06another case of a car colliding with a bus full of passengers...
0:03:06 > 0:03:08..and another...
0:03:08 > 0:03:10..and another...
0:03:10 > 0:03:13In all, five very similar incidents came to light,
0:03:13 > 0:03:16all in Chester, all suspicious.
0:03:16 > 0:03:18Julie's team launched an investigation.
0:03:18 > 0:03:21So using the latest analytical software
0:03:21 > 0:03:24we have access to, we found various passenger links
0:03:24 > 0:03:27between the passengers that were on one bus and passengers on another.
0:03:27 > 0:03:30We had, obviously, the vehicle damaged...
0:03:30 > 0:03:33that was verified by forensic engineering as being extremely minor
0:03:33 > 0:03:34and highly unlikely to cause injury.
0:03:34 > 0:03:38We had passengers boarding at certain stops that did not
0:03:38 > 0:03:41live around the area. Ticketing data showed unusual
0:03:41 > 0:03:44passenger numbers for that time of day on those particular routes.
0:03:44 > 0:03:47We even had phantom passenger claims presented where,
0:03:47 > 0:03:50having a look at their addresses, they were not registered there.
0:03:50 > 0:03:52So this obviously caused us, you know, real concerns.
0:03:54 > 0:03:58Real enough for FirstGroup to involve the police.
0:03:58 > 0:04:02DC Stephen Owens was the chief investigating officer on the case.
0:04:02 > 0:04:05One thing immediately stood out.
0:04:05 > 0:04:09The collisions were all very similar.
0:04:09 > 0:04:13They were very low speed, low impact collisions
0:04:13 > 0:04:16which resulted in very minor damage to both vehicles -
0:04:16 > 0:04:19the vehicle that drove into the bus and the bus itself.
0:04:19 > 0:04:24Despite this, every incident had resulted in dozens of claims.
0:04:24 > 0:04:26But there was a key piece of evidence
0:04:26 > 0:04:28which would reveal what was going on -
0:04:28 > 0:04:30CCTV.
0:04:33 > 0:04:36The images start as it's coming up Sealand Road
0:04:36 > 0:04:39past the industrial estate.
0:04:39 > 0:04:41And you can see the left-hand side
0:04:41 > 0:04:45it's a Rover 25 and you can see it's well over the white line
0:04:45 > 0:04:47and the junction nine.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50As the bus approaches, there's no other vehicles on the road.
0:04:50 > 0:04:52You can see it could have easily have pulled out.
0:04:52 > 0:04:55It chooses not to and just as the bus has passed,
0:04:55 > 0:04:58he seems to pull out and just clip the side of the bus.
0:05:03 > 0:05:05As you can see, there was minimal impact to the bus,
0:05:05 > 0:05:09there was minimal impact to the other vehicle involved
0:05:09 > 0:05:12and for the majority of these passengers being injured,
0:05:12 > 0:05:16I just can't see how it could have happened.
0:05:16 > 0:05:19In another of the five dubious accidents, the images show
0:05:19 > 0:05:22the suspicious behaviour of the car driver as the bus
0:05:22 > 0:05:24travels along its route.
0:05:25 > 0:05:29The Audi TT was at the junction for some time before our bus passed.
0:05:31 > 0:05:35And then it just seemed to shoot out into the path of our bus.
0:05:35 > 0:05:38He appears to have had to accelerated to have hit the corner.
0:05:38 > 0:05:41Maybe he had second thoughts
0:05:41 > 0:05:43but then decided at the last moment to go ahead with it.
0:05:43 > 0:05:46It's not just the car driver who's acting strangely.
0:05:46 > 0:05:49There are numerous passengers on our bus and you can see afterwards they
0:05:49 > 0:05:53all hanging around on their phones, which is a little bit suspicious.
0:05:53 > 0:05:56A lot of them do walk to the side of the bus
0:05:56 > 0:05:58and they take out their mobile phones and they take photographs.
0:05:58 > 0:06:00Why would you do that?
0:06:00 > 0:06:04Unless it was in your mind at that time you wanted to make a claim.
0:06:05 > 0:06:08Great evidence. Great evidence.
0:06:08 > 0:06:12CCTV footage wasn't the only thing the gang had overlooked.
0:06:13 > 0:06:17The fault vehicle in yet another one of the five suspect collisions
0:06:17 > 0:06:18wasn't properly insured.
0:06:18 > 0:06:21This meant that the incident was investigated by a team
0:06:21 > 0:06:23from the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
0:06:23 > 0:06:26Paul Ryman-Tubb is their head of technical.
0:06:26 > 0:06:30One of the first things we did was commission a report from
0:06:30 > 0:06:31a forensic motor engineer to go
0:06:31 > 0:06:33and have a look at the van,
0:06:33 > 0:06:35tell us what sort of damage had been
0:06:35 > 0:06:36sustained to the van,
0:06:36 > 0:06:39take some photographs and give us a view as to the severity
0:06:39 > 0:06:42of the collision.
0:06:42 > 0:06:4623 passengers claiming whiplash pointed towards a serious accident.
0:06:46 > 0:06:49But this was totally contradicted by the report.
0:06:49 > 0:06:54The engineer was very clear that this was a very minor collision.
0:06:54 > 0:06:57He described it as the glancing blow.
0:06:57 > 0:07:01He took some photographs of it showing a very small dent
0:07:01 > 0:07:04in the rear panel of the van.
0:07:04 > 0:07:07It was so slight that it was difficult to see it
0:07:07 > 0:07:10on the photographs and hadn't even broken the paintwork.
0:07:10 > 0:07:13It was clear from the CCTV that this was more than
0:07:13 > 0:07:15just a few dodgy whiplash claims.
0:07:15 > 0:07:17Tellingly, all the personal injury claims
0:07:17 > 0:07:20were being processed by just one company,
0:07:20 > 0:07:22Swift Accident Solutions Limited in Chester.
0:07:23 > 0:07:28And the man behind it, a certain John Smith, was making big bucks.
0:07:28 > 0:07:31And how it works - John Smith has an accident management company,
0:07:31 > 0:07:35looks to get claims to sell on to accident claims solicitors.
0:07:35 > 0:07:40He was invoicing in the region of £800-£960 per claim.
0:07:40 > 0:07:43So he's getting almost £1,000 per claim that he sold on.
0:07:43 > 0:07:48John Smith might have sounded like a fake name but it was real,
0:07:48 > 0:07:50just like the money he was turning over
0:07:50 > 0:07:52from the multiple injury claims.
0:07:52 > 0:07:55When we looked at it and we understood how it worked,
0:07:55 > 0:07:58John Smith could be the only person who would have done it.
0:07:58 > 0:08:02What motivation would there be for people to crash into a bus?
0:08:02 > 0:08:06Stephen suspected that the people driving the vehicles into the buses
0:08:06 > 0:08:10were also part of the scam and were being paid for their services.
0:08:10 > 0:08:12Now, who would pay them? The person who would benefit.
0:08:12 > 0:08:15And who would benefit? Well, John Smith.
0:08:15 > 0:08:19The net was closing in but before they could finish the investigation,
0:08:19 > 0:08:22Stephen and his team were confronted by a chilling new development.
0:08:22 > 0:08:25There was another collision on Liverpool Road in Chester.
0:08:25 > 0:08:29That collision made us realise that the gang were still active,
0:08:29 > 0:08:32and they were still doing this and it forced our hand.
0:08:32 > 0:08:35It put pressure on us to act quickly, which is what we did.
0:08:35 > 0:08:37In a huge operation, strikes were carried out
0:08:37 > 0:08:39on the properties of the main suspects,
0:08:39 > 0:08:42including Smith's office at Swift Accident Solutions,
0:08:42 > 0:08:45where they found an all-important memory stick.
0:08:45 > 0:08:48And on there were details of all the claimants
0:08:48 > 0:08:50and their mobile phone details.
0:08:50 > 0:08:52So when we looked at his records and those of the people
0:08:52 > 0:08:55we believed have set up the collision,
0:08:55 > 0:08:57we could see that they did know everyone,
0:08:57 > 0:08:59they did know the claimants and they knew them before
0:08:59 > 0:09:01and after the collision.
0:09:01 > 0:09:04Evidence from the strikes also revealed the existence
0:09:04 > 0:09:07of another incident that hat happened several months before.
0:09:07 > 0:09:10All in all, there were seven staged collisions,
0:09:10 > 0:09:13involving approximately 200 people and a vast amount of money.
0:09:15 > 0:09:18We estimated this to have been worth around £1.7 million,
0:09:18 > 0:09:21which would have been the financial cost to the insurers involved.
0:09:21 > 0:09:24In my time at FirstGroup, this is probably one of the biggest frauds
0:09:24 > 0:09:26I've had to deal with.
0:09:26 > 0:09:28And it resulted in a big trial.
0:09:28 > 0:09:30The case went to Manchester Crown Court
0:09:30 > 0:09:34and after a three-month trial, John Smith was found guilty.
0:09:34 > 0:09:38For a £1.7 million fraud, he was sentenced to 6.5 years
0:09:38 > 0:09:42and the rest of the gang suffered similar fates.
0:09:42 > 0:09:44We were extremely pleased with the results of the trial.
0:09:44 > 0:09:4830 years in custodial sentences, 15 people prosecuted,
0:09:48 > 0:09:51the police did a fantastic job.
0:09:51 > 0:09:54The consequences are very severe and it should act as a deterrent
0:09:54 > 0:09:57to people getting involved in such crime.
0:09:57 > 0:10:00Although the claims were fake, the accidents were very real
0:10:00 > 0:10:03and it's frightening to think what could have happened.
0:10:03 > 0:10:05This could have gone very, very wrong.
0:10:05 > 0:10:07We could have been looking at serious injuries,
0:10:07 > 0:10:09we could have been looking at fatalities.
0:10:09 > 0:10:11It could have been elderly people or young children that
0:10:11 > 0:10:14could have been seriously hurt.
0:10:18 > 0:10:21Later, a landlord's fraudulent fire claim goes up in smoke.
0:10:21 > 0:10:25Mr Shah's motivation can be summed up in two ways -
0:10:25 > 0:10:27one was sheer greed
0:10:27 > 0:10:29and the second was blatant dishonesty.
0:10:29 > 0:10:31And a fake insurance claim in the States
0:10:31 > 0:10:34annihilates an entire neighbourhood.
0:10:44 > 0:10:47CCTV cameras are increasingly being seen as part of the furniture
0:10:47 > 0:10:50in the UK's pubs and bars.
0:10:50 > 0:10:54They are vitally important in these kind of environments,
0:10:54 > 0:10:56making the difference in cases where
0:10:56 > 0:10:58it's one person's word against another.
0:11:00 > 0:11:05Gillian Ofori-Nyarko is part of JD Wetherspoon's legal department.
0:11:07 > 0:11:11We currently have 951 pubs up and down the country
0:11:11 > 0:11:13in the UK and in Ireland.
0:11:13 > 0:11:15We get hundreds of thousands of customers per year
0:11:15 > 0:11:17walk through our doors.
0:11:18 > 0:11:21And ideally they want everyone to walk back out again
0:11:21 > 0:11:24safely and securely at the end of the night.
0:11:24 > 0:11:28But disaster recently struck at one busy watering hole.
0:11:28 > 0:11:31An ambulance was called to assist a customer that had come a cropper
0:11:31 > 0:11:32and sustained a serious injury.
0:11:34 > 0:11:37The claimant alleges that she walked into our pub
0:11:37 > 0:11:39and slipped on wet floor.
0:11:41 > 0:11:45As a result of the fall, she claims that she fractured her leg.
0:11:45 > 0:11:48The amount of compensation involved was sobering.
0:11:50 > 0:11:51We referred the claim to our solicitors,
0:11:51 > 0:11:55who priced the whole thing up at around £26,000.
0:11:55 > 0:11:58This would have included costs for the claimant, for her going
0:11:58 > 0:12:02to her solicitors, for damages, medical care and our costs as well.
0:12:05 > 0:12:08As with any accident on its premises,
0:12:08 > 0:12:11Wetherspoons decided to take a close look at what had allegedly happened.
0:12:11 > 0:12:14Well, as part of the investigation we always
0:12:14 > 0:12:19ask for a copy of the rota, a copy of CCTV,
0:12:19 > 0:12:22witness statements from anyone who might have seen the accident,
0:12:22 > 0:12:25from the manager or from any other members of staff
0:12:25 > 0:12:27who were working that day.
0:12:27 > 0:12:30However, this evidence contradicted the story
0:12:30 > 0:12:32put forward by the claimant.
0:12:34 > 0:12:36She claimed that she reported the accident to the manager
0:12:36 > 0:12:39yet the first thing he knew about the accident was
0:12:39 > 0:12:42when he went outside and she was being attended to by a paramedic.
0:12:44 > 0:12:47Could the claimant have made a simple slip-up in telling
0:12:47 > 0:12:49her side of the story?
0:12:50 > 0:12:53Luckily, the pub's CCTV would reveal whether the case had legs.
0:12:56 > 0:12:59If her story was true, we would have expected to see a woman slip
0:12:59 > 0:13:03on wet floor and, I imagine, people come to her aid,
0:13:03 > 0:13:05seeing as she'd fallen over.
0:13:05 > 0:13:07But that is not what was seen on the footage.
0:13:09 > 0:13:12In fact, the truth was so far from what was alleged
0:13:12 > 0:13:14that it put the boot into the claim.
0:13:16 > 0:13:19We couldn't believe that this claim had ever been made.
0:13:19 > 0:13:22It was quite clear to see that she'd walked in already injured
0:13:22 > 0:13:24and on crutches.
0:13:24 > 0:13:25The whole time that she's there,
0:13:25 > 0:13:28there's no sign of any accident occurring.
0:13:28 > 0:13:30They then go out for a cigarette
0:13:30 > 0:13:34and the last we see is her leaving because she'd called the ambulance.
0:13:36 > 0:13:40Everybody who looked at the CCTV was in actual shock.
0:13:40 > 0:13:44We didn't expect for somebody to be quite so brazen.
0:13:45 > 0:13:49The broken leg injury claim was cast firmly aside.
0:13:49 > 0:13:51So we sent the footage to her solicitors
0:13:51 > 0:13:55and we didn't hear anything back from them afterwards.
0:13:56 > 0:13:58And that's where the matter rested...
0:13:58 > 0:14:03Or so they thought, until a second set of solicitors got in touch.
0:14:03 > 0:14:06When we received the second claim notification form, I think
0:14:06 > 0:14:09we were all quite shocked that it had come through again
0:14:09 > 0:14:12and she had nothing to support the allegations that she was making.
0:14:12 > 0:14:16She must have suffered a bang to the head in the alleged fall
0:14:16 > 0:14:20for her to think she could get away with putting the claim in again.
0:14:20 > 0:14:23There were major inconsistencies with the claimant's claim.
0:14:23 > 0:14:26In the first form that she submitted,
0:14:26 > 0:14:28she said that she was unemployed,
0:14:28 > 0:14:31whereas in the second form that she submitted she said she was
0:14:31 > 0:14:35a bank nurse and had been unable to work since the date of her accident.
0:14:35 > 0:14:38Evidently, the intention was to try and increase
0:14:38 > 0:14:41the amount of compensation by claiming for loss of earnings.
0:14:41 > 0:14:44However, the company called time on the second injury claim.
0:14:44 > 0:14:46And this time it was kicked into touch.
0:14:49 > 0:14:51JD Wetherspoon are completely against false claims.
0:14:51 > 0:14:54If a customer comes into our pub and genuinely hurts themselves,
0:14:54 > 0:14:56then we are definitely there to help.
0:14:56 > 0:14:59However, we won't stand for the process being abused.
0:15:05 > 0:15:09While technology has made a huge difference, good investigators
0:15:09 > 0:15:12are able to detect the whiff of fraud from a mile off,
0:15:12 > 0:15:14using nothing but gut instinct.
0:15:16 > 0:15:20Andy Morris is Assurant's Chief Marketing Officer.
0:15:20 > 0:15:23His company recently dealt with a claim for compensation
0:15:23 > 0:15:25for a lost mobile phone.
0:15:25 > 0:15:28So this claimant was a construction worker and they were
0:15:28 > 0:15:32working down a manhole in a sewer
0:15:32 > 0:15:34and everything that that conjures up.
0:15:34 > 0:15:37Unfortunately, the phone,
0:15:37 > 0:15:40they'd lost it down the sewer in the effluent.
0:15:40 > 0:15:44Ugh - that's one phone you'd never want to use again.
0:15:44 > 0:15:45During the claims process,
0:15:45 > 0:15:49technological analysis meant that concerns were logged
0:15:49 > 0:15:51or, to put it another way...
0:15:51 > 0:15:55As this case developed, it started to smell.
0:15:55 > 0:15:58Assurant's fraud team has a nose for a phoney story
0:15:58 > 0:16:01and their findings supported their suspicions.
0:16:01 > 0:16:05It became very clear to our agents that the claimant was using
0:16:05 > 0:16:07exactly the same telephone number
0:16:07 > 0:16:12and exactly the same SIM from the handset that had been
0:16:12 > 0:16:16irretrievably lost down the sewage in the effluent.
0:16:17 > 0:16:19That's where the claim will be going
0:16:19 > 0:16:21unless there was a good explanation.
0:16:21 > 0:16:24When we then challenged the claimant,
0:16:24 > 0:16:27the claimant then informed us that they
0:16:27 > 0:16:31had gone back down the manhole and fished around the sewer
0:16:31 > 0:16:36to find the device that they had claimed was lost.
0:17:02 > 0:17:06But investigators were privy to further analysis
0:17:06 > 0:17:08which proved that the SIM and telephone number were paired
0:17:08 > 0:17:12with a unique identification number from the mobile.
0:17:12 > 0:17:15The pairing of that telephone number with the SIM
0:17:15 > 0:17:19to the unique identification number on the device,
0:17:19 > 0:17:22all of those three evidence points and data points,
0:17:22 > 0:17:26for us, proved that it was the original phone
0:17:26 > 0:17:32that the claimant had claimed was lost down the sewer.
0:17:32 > 0:17:35Assurant spoke to the claimant about the concerns
0:17:35 > 0:17:37and he kicked up quite a stink.
0:18:15 > 0:18:18He immediately responded in an emotional fashion.
0:18:18 > 0:18:21He was very aggrieved about that situation.
0:18:21 > 0:18:25As the old saying goes, where there's muck, there's brass,
0:18:25 > 0:18:28but in this instance, there was lots of muck but not very much brass.
0:18:28 > 0:18:31What was quite strange about this case
0:18:31 > 0:18:33is that it wasn't a high-end smartphone.
0:18:33 > 0:18:38The actual device they were claiming for was just a standard phone.
0:18:38 > 0:18:42I think psychologically, some people feel that if it's under a certain
0:18:42 > 0:18:48amount of money, that somehow that's not a crime, or that's not fraud.
0:18:48 > 0:18:51But mud sticks and Assurant is determined to flush out
0:18:51 > 0:18:53any bogus behaviour.
0:18:53 > 0:18:57The clear message that this case sends out is,
0:18:57 > 0:19:02if you are thinking about attempting to submit a false claim, don't.
0:19:08 > 0:19:12While some fraudsters try to claim for incidents that never happen,
0:19:12 > 0:19:16some attempt to exploit real events for their own benefit.
0:19:16 > 0:19:18But without a lot of background planning,
0:19:18 > 0:19:20their greed often gives them away.
0:19:21 > 0:19:27Mike Brown is head of Counter Fraud Intelligence at Direct Line.
0:19:27 > 0:19:31Mr Shah, who is in fact a landlord of a number of properties,
0:19:31 > 0:19:35contacted Direct Line to initiate a fire claim
0:19:35 > 0:19:38against his property at Langdale Road which had been subject
0:19:38 > 0:19:41to a fire caused by an electrical fault.
0:19:41 > 0:19:42According to Mr Shah,
0:19:42 > 0:19:46the blaze had caused a significant amount of damage.
0:19:46 > 0:19:52The initial claim made by Mr Shah was in the region of £810,000.
0:19:52 > 0:19:55Thankfully, no one had been hurt.
0:19:55 > 0:19:57With the best part of £1 million on the line,
0:19:57 > 0:20:00Mike's team took a close look at the case.
0:20:00 > 0:20:04It was very quickly established that Mr Shah had incepted
0:20:04 > 0:20:11the policy the day before the claim was made.
0:20:11 > 0:20:13Investigators quickly assessed the phone recording
0:20:13 > 0:20:15of Mr Shah taking out the policy.
0:20:22 > 0:20:25The first part of the call sounded genuine enough.
0:20:39 > 0:20:43Mr Shah would have been asked standard questions, one of which
0:20:43 > 0:20:47would be the current maintenance and condition of that property.
0:20:58 > 0:20:59But later in the phone call,
0:20:59 > 0:21:03they heard something which immediately fired up concerns.
0:21:23 > 0:21:25At the point of inception,
0:21:25 > 0:21:30he asked for the policy to be commenced five days previous.
0:21:30 > 0:21:32That in itself is a flag.
0:21:33 > 0:21:36It's a flag because there is no reason to backdate a policy,
0:21:36 > 0:21:38unless you are trying to get cover for an incident
0:21:38 > 0:21:41that has already happened and you are uninsured at the time.
0:21:43 > 0:21:44Suspicions had been ignited
0:21:44 > 0:21:47and a loss adjuster was then sent to the address.
0:21:47 > 0:21:51His estimation of the value of that property,
0:21:51 > 0:21:56prior to the fire taking hold, was £250,000.
0:21:56 > 0:22:03The claim implemented by Mr Shah was £810,000,
0:22:03 > 0:22:07clearly an exaggeration of the value of this property.
0:22:07 > 0:22:10An exaggeration that would make even an estate agent blush.
0:22:10 > 0:22:14With doubt smouldering, investigators focused on the blaze.
0:22:14 > 0:22:18They retrieved the fire logs from the Fire Brigade
0:22:18 > 0:22:21which has the timings of the initial call from a member of the public,
0:22:21 > 0:22:25that there was a fire or smoke coming from Langdale Road,
0:22:25 > 0:22:28to the point of when the Fire Service arrived on scene,
0:22:28 > 0:22:31to the point that the fire is put under control.
0:22:31 > 0:22:33That would have been then correlated
0:22:33 > 0:22:40to when Mr Shah took out the policy itself for Langdale Road.
0:22:40 > 0:22:42Which, when we look at the timeline,
0:22:42 > 0:22:45was within two hours of the actual fire.
0:22:45 > 0:22:48So, the fire had actually taken place
0:22:48 > 0:22:52before Mr Shah had taken the policy out.
0:22:52 > 0:22:53The findings were explosive.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56They now knew the true timeline of events.
0:22:56 > 0:23:02That Mr Shah was on scene at the fire within an hour,
0:23:02 > 0:23:04and an hour later,
0:23:04 > 0:23:11took out the policy of inception for the property at Langdale Road.
0:23:11 > 0:23:13Then lodged a claim the following day.
0:23:13 > 0:23:16The timeline meant that he had been less than truthful
0:23:16 > 0:23:19when he said the property was in good condition.
0:23:24 > 0:23:27Basically, he lied all the way through the process.
0:23:27 > 0:23:29Not only had he tried to claim compensation
0:23:29 > 0:23:33for his uninsured property, but he also exaggerated the value,
0:23:33 > 0:23:36to try and make a massive profit.
0:23:36 > 0:23:38As far as Direct Line was concerned,
0:23:38 > 0:23:40he wasn't entitled to a penny of compensation
0:23:40 > 0:23:43and they duly informed him that his claim had been declined.
0:23:45 > 0:23:47Not content with this outcome,
0:23:47 > 0:23:49Mr Shah then proceeded to take the company to court.
0:23:49 > 0:23:51The evidence was compelling.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54Any reasonable person would have walked away from that claim.
0:23:54 > 0:24:01This is a classic example of a greedy and dishonest individual
0:24:01 > 0:24:07who was hellbent on attempting to elicit moneys from an insurer.
0:24:07 > 0:24:09Direct Line weren't alone in that assessment.
0:24:09 > 0:24:14At the County Court, Mr Shah's own legal advisers
0:24:14 > 0:24:20withdrew on the basis of professional embarrassment.
0:24:20 > 0:24:22Unsurprisingly, his case was extinguished
0:24:22 > 0:24:25but Direct Line weren't prepared to leave things there
0:24:25 > 0:24:27and passed their evidence to the police.
0:24:27 > 0:24:30He subsequently appeared before the Old Bailey
0:24:30 > 0:24:32where he was convicted for fraud.
0:24:32 > 0:24:35He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment,
0:24:35 > 0:24:37suspended for two years.
0:24:37 > 0:24:42Mr Shah's motivation, I think, can be summed up in two ways.
0:24:42 > 0:24:46One was sheer greed and the second was plain dishonesty.
0:24:46 > 0:24:50This was a clear case where Mr Shah had a property
0:24:50 > 0:24:55that was uninsured, sustained serious fire damage,
0:24:55 > 0:24:58and was looking at paying for those repairs himself
0:24:58 > 0:25:02and sought to deceive an insurer into footing the bill,
0:25:02 > 0:25:07at an exaggerated rate, as I say, of £810,000.
0:25:07 > 0:25:10Mr Shah got burned when he fraudulently attempted
0:25:10 > 0:25:13to profit from a fire that had already happened.
0:25:14 > 0:25:15While in the States,
0:25:15 > 0:25:17fraudsters are prepared to turn on the heat to take it
0:25:17 > 0:25:19to a whole other level,
0:25:19 > 0:25:22and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.
0:25:23 > 0:25:26Life in the American suburbs is known for being peaceful
0:25:26 > 0:25:28and largely uneventful.
0:25:29 > 0:25:34So, nothing prepared the residents of Indianapolis for this.
0:25:35 > 0:25:38A deadly explosion in November 2012
0:25:38 > 0:25:40ripped through an entire neighbourhood.
0:25:43 > 0:25:46More than 80 homes were destroyed or damaged in the initial blast
0:25:46 > 0:25:50and more were ruined in the fierce blaze which followed the explosion.
0:25:50 > 0:25:54Buildings, gardens and cars were wrecked, with repair costs
0:25:54 > 0:25:56estimated at a staggering 4 million.
0:25:59 > 0:26:01Given the scale of the devastation,
0:26:01 > 0:26:05it was remarkable that only two people tragically lost their lives.
0:26:05 > 0:26:07The whole community was affected.
0:26:07 > 0:26:10Some people found themselves suddenly homeless.
0:26:10 > 0:26:13Some were seriously injured and others suffered
0:26:13 > 0:26:17post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the events of that night.
0:26:18 > 0:26:21When morning came, it looked like a bomb had been dropped,
0:26:21 > 0:26:25but the true cause was something no one at the time suspected.
0:26:25 > 0:26:28Investigators focused their attention on the property
0:26:28 > 0:26:30at the centre of the explosion,
0:26:30 > 0:26:33the house that was immediately next door to the residence
0:26:33 > 0:26:34where the couple died.
0:26:37 > 0:26:41The property turned out to be the home of Monserrate Shirley
0:26:41 > 0:26:43and her partner, Mark Leonard.
0:26:43 > 0:26:44On the night in question,
0:26:44 > 0:26:48they'd been out of the house gambling at a nearby casino.
0:26:49 > 0:26:53The investigation revealed that the couple were in considerable debt
0:26:53 > 0:26:55and in the weeks before the blast,
0:26:55 > 0:26:58insurance on the home had been increased to 300,000.
0:26:59 > 0:27:04But the real bombshell was that the explosion was no accident.
0:27:04 > 0:27:07Physical evidence indicated that the house had been filled with gas,
0:27:07 > 0:27:11which had been ignited using the spark from a microwave
0:27:11 > 0:27:12set in advance.
0:27:13 > 0:27:17MICROWAVE BEEPING
0:27:17 > 0:27:19BANG
0:27:22 > 0:27:25All the evidence pointed towards Shirley and Leonard
0:27:25 > 0:27:27deliberately and recklessly blowing up their house
0:27:27 > 0:27:33to fraudulently collect an insurance payout, with tragic consequences.
0:27:33 > 0:27:35When the case went to court, Mark Leonard,
0:27:35 > 0:27:38judged to be the ringleader, was found guilty
0:27:38 > 0:27:41and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without parole,
0:27:41 > 0:27:44and an additional 75 years in prison.
0:27:45 > 0:27:48Monserrate Shirley pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy
0:27:48 > 0:27:51to commit arson as part of a plea agreement.
0:27:51 > 0:27:55She remains in jail and faces a sentence of over 20 years.
0:27:57 > 0:27:59While this part of Indianapolis
0:27:59 > 0:28:02will eventually return to suburban peacefulness,
0:28:02 > 0:28:04nothing can bring back the two people
0:28:04 > 0:28:08who lost their lives as a result of the couple's sheer greed.