0:00:06 > 0:00:10Insurance fraud has reached epidemic levels in the UK.
0:00:10 > 0:00:14It's costing us more than £1.3 billion every year.
0:00:14 > 0:00:17That's almost 3.6 million every day.
0:00:19 > 0:00:22Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries,
0:00:22 > 0:00:24even phantom pets.
0:00:25 > 0:00:29The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing
0:00:29 > 0:00:33and, every year, it's adding around £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:33 > 0:00:38But insurers are fighting back, exposing just under 15 fake claims
0:00:38 > 0:00:41every hour. Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:41 > 0:00:44Subject out of the vehicle.
0:00:44 > 0:00:47..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:48 > 0:00:51..and a number of highly skilled police units...
0:00:51 > 0:00:53Police! Don't move! stay where you are!
0:00:53 > 0:00:55..they're catching the criminals red-handed.
0:00:55 > 0:00:58Just don't lie to us.
0:00:58 > 0:01:02All those conmen, scammers and cheats on the fiddle are now caught
0:01:02 > 0:01:05in the act and claimed and shamed.
0:01:11 > 0:01:15Today, undercover filming causes a £250,000
0:01:15 > 0:01:18personal injury claim to fall down.
0:01:18 > 0:01:20This is quite surprising footage, really.
0:01:20 > 0:01:23It is, I suppose, shock value.
0:01:23 > 0:01:27A bus claim stalls when CCTV reveals there was no accident.
0:01:27 > 0:01:30We did wonder whether or not we'd pulled the right footage,
0:01:30 > 0:01:32considering what she was claiming for. So we checked our disks
0:01:32 > 0:01:34and, yes, it was the right one.
0:01:34 > 0:01:37And a woman is caught planning her husband's murder by an
0:01:37 > 0:01:40undercover police officer posing as a hit man.
0:01:49 > 0:01:51Like a lot of people, I used to think
0:01:51 > 0:01:53that insurance fraud only occurs when someone
0:01:53 > 0:01:57completely fabricates a claim for something that never happened.
0:01:57 > 0:02:01A flatscreen TV supposedly stolen in a break-in, for example.
0:02:01 > 0:02:03It's a common misconception.
0:02:03 > 0:02:06The penalties for exaggerating a claim that is otherwise
0:02:06 > 0:02:09genuine are just as severe.
0:02:12 > 0:02:17Building work poses all sorts of dangers
0:02:17 > 0:02:19and, despite the hard hats and high-vis tabards,
0:02:19 > 0:02:23accidents will happen.
0:02:23 > 0:02:26Any responsible employer will have insurance cover to protect
0:02:26 > 0:02:28their staff should the worst happen.
0:02:28 > 0:02:30As in this case.
0:02:31 > 0:02:33Mr Kittle was working for our policy holder
0:02:33 > 0:02:35at a private property.
0:02:35 > 0:02:39Rob Smith-Wright is the claims manager for insurers QBE.
0:02:43 > 0:02:45He was in the process of ascending a ladder...
0:02:47 > 0:02:50..when the ladder gave way underneath him.
0:02:53 > 0:02:56As he fell, the ladder trapped his knee and actually he suffered
0:02:56 > 0:02:59a fracture to both his tibia and fibula.
0:02:59 > 0:03:01In other words, a double leg break.
0:03:04 > 0:03:05So the injuries that Gary Kittle
0:03:05 > 0:03:08would have suffered would have been quite debilitating.
0:03:08 > 0:03:10He would have required open surgery,
0:03:10 > 0:03:14he would have required a significant period of rehabilitation
0:03:14 > 0:03:17before he could have been considered fit to work again.
0:03:17 > 0:03:20As part of the claims process, he was examined by
0:03:20 > 0:03:25a medical expert, who provided more detail about his condition.
0:03:25 > 0:03:28He was severely restricted in what he was able to do,
0:03:28 > 0:03:30he wasn't able to climb ladders.
0:03:30 > 0:03:33He was claiming he was finding difficulty in walking up and
0:03:33 > 0:03:36down stairs, being able to crawl,
0:03:36 > 0:03:39undertake general household duties, so we were being painted
0:03:39 > 0:03:45a picture of someone who was in a really serious state.
0:03:45 > 0:03:49Since Mr Kittle's injuries were so significant,
0:03:49 > 0:03:52the cost of the claim was rapidly expanding.
0:03:54 > 0:03:56We would have been looking at compensation
0:03:56 > 0:03:59in the region of £25,000.
0:04:00 > 0:04:03As it stood, there was nothing unusual about the claim.
0:04:04 > 0:04:08We had no reason to doubt the incident.
0:04:08 > 0:04:12We had no reason to doubt the injury that he had suffered.
0:04:12 > 0:04:15But what they did have reason to doubt was the extended length
0:04:15 > 0:04:17of his recovery.
0:04:17 > 0:04:20Our first suspicions arose around March 2009.
0:04:20 > 0:04:23Mr Kittle had been released from rehabilitation treatment
0:04:23 > 0:04:27and we had been advised in those medical records that he'd had
0:04:27 > 0:04:28a full range of pain-free movement
0:04:28 > 0:04:31and therefore he could return to work.
0:04:31 > 0:04:35However, Mr Kittle alleged that his symptoms were continuing
0:04:35 > 0:04:38and he didn't feel that he was able to return to work.
0:04:38 > 0:04:41This was outside of the general range of the recovery period
0:04:41 > 0:04:43expected for this kind of injury.
0:04:43 > 0:04:47The upshot being that he required further compensation,
0:04:47 > 0:04:50since he was still allegedly unable to earn a living.
0:04:50 > 0:04:53Our next steps, really, were to discover whether or not
0:04:53 > 0:04:57Mr Kittle was indeed as injured as he says he was.
0:05:00 > 0:05:01With that in mind,
0:05:01 > 0:05:05investigators carried out surveillance on the claimant.
0:05:05 > 0:05:07The surveillance footage we would have expected to have seen
0:05:07 > 0:05:10with regards to Mr Kittle would have been someone who wasn't as
0:05:10 > 0:05:12mobile as he possibly could have been,
0:05:12 > 0:05:13who was suffering
0:05:13 > 0:05:15in pain and movement,
0:05:15 > 0:05:17and generally would have been
0:05:17 > 0:05:19unable to undertake even, you know,
0:05:19 > 0:05:22the simplest of household duties.
0:05:22 > 0:05:24But the filming shows
0:05:24 > 0:05:25a different picture.
0:05:25 > 0:05:27Kittle isn't exactly
0:05:27 > 0:05:28keeping a low profile -
0:05:28 > 0:05:30his bright-red jumper
0:05:30 > 0:05:31sort of stands out.
0:05:31 > 0:05:34The first footage that we obtained
0:05:34 > 0:05:35showed the claimant working,
0:05:35 > 0:05:37despite the fact that
0:05:37 > 0:05:39we had been told that he had been signed off from work.
0:05:39 > 0:05:41He was seen digging and he was seen
0:05:41 > 0:05:42moving a wheelbarrow,
0:05:42 > 0:05:44directly contradicting the general
0:05:44 > 0:05:47capabilities that he says he can do.
0:05:47 > 0:05:48So the initial reaction to
0:05:48 > 0:05:51the first period of surveillance
0:05:51 > 0:05:53was one of surprise.
0:05:53 > 0:05:55To eliminate the possibility
0:05:55 > 0:05:56that Kittle was just having
0:05:56 > 0:05:58a good day, further surveillance
0:05:58 > 0:06:00was carried out.
0:06:00 > 0:06:04It showed Mr Kittle in a rather more precarious position,
0:06:04 > 0:06:06which was up on a roof.
0:06:07 > 0:06:09For a man who allegedly
0:06:09 > 0:06:10had mobility issues,
0:06:10 > 0:06:13stairs would have been a problem,
0:06:13 > 0:06:15let alone a ladder.
0:06:15 > 0:06:17He was working for a roofing company.
0:06:17 > 0:06:19He could be seen both ascending
0:06:19 > 0:06:21and descending ladders with ease.
0:06:21 > 0:06:22He could be seen
0:06:22 > 0:06:23moving quite large...
0:06:23 > 0:06:26lifting heavy objects.
0:06:26 > 0:06:27Generally, this was a picture of
0:06:27 > 0:06:29someone who was far more
0:06:29 > 0:06:32capable of work and far more capable of activities than
0:06:32 > 0:06:35he was actually letting us know.
0:06:35 > 0:06:37At this point, we were convinced
0:06:37 > 0:06:39that Mr Kittle was grossly
0:06:39 > 0:06:40exaggerating the symptoms
0:06:40 > 0:06:41that he was suffering.
0:06:41 > 0:06:46The surveillance continued and produced even more damning evidence.
0:06:46 > 0:06:49What it actually showed was a further recovery period
0:06:49 > 0:06:51for Mr Kittle.
0:06:51 > 0:06:55Here we see him getting into what appears to be a work van
0:06:55 > 0:06:57and driving off.
0:06:58 > 0:07:00When he arrives at his destination,
0:07:00 > 0:07:03it's apparent that he's not there on a social visit.
0:07:03 > 0:07:05He's there to work -
0:07:05 > 0:07:08carrying a bucket,
0:07:08 > 0:07:11sweeping the patio,
0:07:11 > 0:07:14moving a bench,
0:07:14 > 0:07:17and even operating a backpack sprayer.
0:07:19 > 0:07:23I mean, whatever he's doing here just takes the biscuit.
0:07:25 > 0:07:29The footage shows that he'd dug himself into a bit of a hole.
0:07:31 > 0:07:34This is quite surprising footage, really,
0:07:34 > 0:07:37simply because of the level of restriction that Mr Kittle
0:07:37 > 0:07:42was telling us that he had, so it is, I suppose, shock value.
0:07:42 > 0:07:47By now, the level of evidence against Mr Kittle was overwhelming.
0:07:47 > 0:07:51It was at this point that the case then began to unravel for Mr Kittle.
0:07:53 > 0:07:55We then disclosed all the surveillance evidence that
0:07:55 > 0:07:58we had gathered to the claimant's solicitors,
0:07:58 > 0:08:00and we simply asked them the question,
0:08:00 > 0:08:02"Was this Mr Kittle in the footage?"
0:08:02 > 0:08:05They confirmed it was, and it was at that point, then,
0:08:05 > 0:08:10that we decided that we would not be making any kind of offers.
0:08:10 > 0:08:12He'd been caught out,
0:08:12 > 0:08:13but, instead of walking away,
0:08:13 > 0:08:19Mr Kittle tried to put QBE on the back foot, with a demand for costs.
0:08:19 > 0:08:23The schedule that he served thereafter was in excess
0:08:23 > 0:08:27of £250,000, and that wasn't including the injury
0:08:27 > 0:08:29that he had suffered, as well -
0:08:29 > 0:08:31this would have been special damages such as lost earnings,
0:08:31 > 0:08:34future care and things like that.
0:08:34 > 0:08:37- PHONE RINGS - Our initial response to that wasn't
0:08:37 > 0:08:39one of major surprise,
0:08:39 > 0:08:42simply because we had already established that Mr Kittle
0:08:42 > 0:08:44was exaggerating his symptoms.
0:08:44 > 0:08:46So, it wasn't too much of a stretch for him to exaggerate
0:08:46 > 0:08:48the cost of the claim.
0:08:49 > 0:08:53Unfortunately for Mr Kittle, QBE weren't going to accept it.
0:08:55 > 0:09:00At that point, we made a conscious decision that Mr Kittle's deceit
0:09:00 > 0:09:04extended into criminal activity,
0:09:04 > 0:09:08and we decided that we would take the route of a private prosecution.
0:09:08 > 0:09:10It's an unusual step. It's not generally done.
0:09:10 > 0:09:15However, the penalties are far more severe using a private prosecution.
0:09:15 > 0:09:19The surveillance footage was central to their case.
0:09:19 > 0:09:23It painted the picture of a man that was prepared to
0:09:23 > 0:09:25lie to medical experts,
0:09:25 > 0:09:30with regards to his conditions and what his true capabilities were.
0:09:30 > 0:09:33We sent the surveillance footage to our medical expert,
0:09:33 > 0:09:36and we asked him to comment upon that against the medical report
0:09:36 > 0:09:38that he'd previously disclosed to us.
0:09:38 > 0:09:41I think it was fair to say that his response to that was,
0:09:41 > 0:09:43erm, quite damning.
0:09:43 > 0:09:47As was the final verdict in the private prosecution.
0:09:47 > 0:09:52He was summoned to attend Guildford Crown Court in May 2015,
0:09:52 > 0:09:54and he pleaded guilty to two of the three charges
0:09:54 > 0:09:55that were laid against him.
0:09:55 > 0:09:59Mr Kittle was sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence of
0:09:59 > 0:10:0112 months' imprisonment.
0:10:02 > 0:10:06Mr Kittle now has ample time on his hands to reflect on
0:10:06 > 0:10:07where he went wrong.
0:10:07 > 0:10:10So, Mr Kittle, as far as we were concerned,
0:10:10 > 0:10:12had suffered a genuine incident,
0:10:12 > 0:10:14and had suffered a genuine injury.
0:10:14 > 0:10:15Had he been true and honest,
0:10:15 > 0:10:18and played the claim with a straight bat, there was every chance
0:10:18 > 0:10:21that Mr Kittle would have walked away with some kind of compensation.
0:10:21 > 0:10:23However, greed took over.
0:10:23 > 0:10:26It's a simple fact that insurance fraud is a crime.
0:10:26 > 0:10:29Exaggeration is insurance fraud and if you do commit it,
0:10:29 > 0:10:31and we have the evidence against you,
0:10:31 > 0:10:34we will pursue the claims to the fullest extent the law allows us to.
0:10:41 > 0:10:45Later, a serial fraudster is locked up...
0:10:45 > 0:10:47Why should people get away with
0:10:47 > 0:10:48making fraudulent claims?
0:10:48 > 0:10:50It's theft at the end of the day.
0:10:50 > 0:10:51It's stealing.
0:10:51 > 0:10:55..and a stark warning to would-be bus accident blaggers.
0:10:55 > 0:10:56There is no getting away with it.
0:10:56 > 0:10:58If we catch you, and we will,
0:10:58 > 0:11:01we will pursue you through the criminal and the civil courts.
0:11:05 > 0:11:08Now, if you or I were involved in an accident where the other driver
0:11:08 > 0:11:11was at fault, we'd expect to be compensated.
0:11:11 > 0:11:14Once the vehicle had been repaired and any injuries treated,
0:11:14 > 0:11:15that would be the end of it.
0:11:15 > 0:11:17But hold that thought -
0:11:17 > 0:11:20unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that.
0:11:20 > 0:11:24There is a certain minority who try to exploit the system.
0:11:26 > 0:11:29They attempt to take advantage of genuine accidents to
0:11:29 > 0:11:33get a bigger pay-out than they're entitled to.
0:11:33 > 0:11:34But when they get caught out,
0:11:34 > 0:11:38they end up much worse off than when they started.
0:11:38 > 0:11:40WHEEL CRUNCHES
0:11:42 > 0:11:46Susan Evans is the fraud manager for Admiral.
0:11:46 > 0:11:48The initial claim that we received,
0:11:48 > 0:11:52our policyholder had pulled out of a side road in wet conditions,
0:11:52 > 0:11:56into the path of a third-party vehicle.
0:11:56 > 0:11:58It was a genuine accident.
0:11:58 > 0:12:01There was nothing wrong with the circumstances at all.
0:12:01 > 0:12:05So, the claim was promptly processed.
0:12:05 > 0:12:07The claim was for the damage to the vehicle -
0:12:07 > 0:12:10it was £6,100,
0:12:10 > 0:12:14and Admiral paid the value in full, in a cheque.
0:12:16 > 0:12:17On the face of it,
0:12:17 > 0:12:19it was a run-of-the-mill motor insurance claim,
0:12:19 > 0:12:23just like the 3 million others processed every year in the UK.
0:12:24 > 0:12:27Usually, at this point in a claim, everybody goes away happy,
0:12:27 > 0:12:31and we wouldn't normally hear from anybody else again.
0:12:31 > 0:12:34Yup, job done, case closed...
0:12:34 > 0:12:36or so Susan thought.
0:12:36 > 0:12:39On this particular occasion, having issued the cheque,
0:12:39 > 0:12:44we get a phone call to say that the cheque had been misplaced.
0:12:44 > 0:12:48Can't find it, and could we possibly issue another one?
0:12:48 > 0:12:51We like to wait a few days, just to check that the Post Office
0:12:51 > 0:12:54hasn't delivered to the wrong address, for example.
0:12:54 > 0:12:55With that in mind,
0:12:55 > 0:12:59Admiral got back in touch with the claimant to see if it had arrived.
0:13:10 > 0:13:11Following on from this,
0:13:11 > 0:13:14Admiral received a number of calls about the cheque.
0:13:14 > 0:13:16They were very, very persistent.
0:13:16 > 0:13:19I think there were around seven calls in total,
0:13:19 > 0:13:22telling us that the cheque hadn't arrived.
0:13:22 > 0:13:25They were primarily from the partner of the claimant.
0:13:46 > 0:13:48And they were very, very convincing,
0:13:48 > 0:13:52telling us that this cheque has been misplaced.
0:13:52 > 0:13:54But the call handler needed to be sure,
0:13:54 > 0:13:58and decided to double-check the third-party's version of events.
0:13:58 > 0:14:02Admiral have procedures that we follow to check if a cheque
0:14:02 > 0:14:05has been banked, and it turned out that it had.
0:14:05 > 0:14:09It was banked somewhere quite close to where the third party lived.
0:14:09 > 0:14:12The call handler immediately spoke to the company
0:14:12 > 0:14:14to confirm what had happened.
0:14:31 > 0:14:33So, we were immediately wondering,
0:14:33 > 0:14:36has somebody picked the cheque up in error?
0:14:36 > 0:14:39Has somebody else banked the cheque?
0:14:39 > 0:14:42We didn't immediately think that a fraud had been committed.
0:14:43 > 0:14:46But something obviously wasn't right -
0:14:46 > 0:14:50someone was now £6,100 better off.
0:14:50 > 0:14:54There was, though, one way to establish who had cashed the cheque
0:14:54 > 0:14:56with the company.
0:14:56 > 0:14:59Photographic ID had been provided by the gentleman,
0:14:59 > 0:15:02as is required when they bank a cheque,
0:15:02 > 0:15:06and it was the third party.
0:15:06 > 0:15:09There's no way that you're going to forget doing that
0:15:09 > 0:15:12so it was quite obvious that there had been an attempt to mislead us.
0:15:14 > 0:15:17This is something that is taken very seriously
0:15:17 > 0:15:21and the third party had to face the consequences of their actions.
0:15:21 > 0:15:23We decided to speak to the police.
0:15:23 > 0:15:25The police actually took the case from us
0:15:25 > 0:15:28and they received a caution as a result of that.
0:15:30 > 0:15:33All the third party had to do was pay in the cheque
0:15:33 > 0:15:35and collect the money they were rightfully owed,
0:15:35 > 0:15:38but they've now ended up on the wrong side of the law.
0:15:38 > 0:15:41It wasn't that clever a fraud, I have to say, and it was quite easy
0:15:41 > 0:15:44for us to prove that a fraud had been committed.
0:15:46 > 0:15:48Unfortunately for the third party,
0:15:48 > 0:15:50they've now got a chequered financial record.
0:15:57 > 0:15:59There is nothing more annoying than losing your phone
0:15:59 > 0:16:01while you're out and about.
0:16:01 > 0:16:03We've all been there, and you wouldn't be alone -
0:16:03 > 0:16:07more than 20,000 mobiles are misplaced on the capital's
0:16:07 > 0:16:09public transport system every year.
0:16:09 > 0:16:12It is, in fact, the number one item of lost property.
0:16:19 > 0:16:22With top-of-the-range of handsets costing more than £500,
0:16:22 > 0:16:26fraudsters have begun to target phone insurance,
0:16:26 > 0:16:28but the industry is fighting back.
0:16:30 > 0:16:34Andy Morris is the president and CEO of Assurant Solutions Europe.
0:16:36 > 0:16:38So, this is an incredible case.
0:16:38 > 0:16:43It started with one of our highly-skilled agents effectively
0:16:43 > 0:16:48being concerned that some of the data didn't correlate.
0:16:49 > 0:16:52The agent noticed a strange pattern emerging across
0:16:52 > 0:16:54a large number of claims.
0:16:54 > 0:16:59One of the anomalies that they found was that the location of the loss
0:16:59 > 0:17:04of the phones was actually always on the London Underground.
0:17:04 > 0:17:07It was enough for Assurant to take a closer look,
0:17:07 > 0:17:10and to identify how many claims were suspicious.
0:17:10 > 0:17:15Well, as it quickly escalated into over 60 cases,
0:17:15 > 0:17:16and a cost to the industry
0:17:16 > 0:17:19and to us of over £30,000.
0:17:19 > 0:17:23It became clear that this was a significant, organised,
0:17:23 > 0:17:25fraudulent activity.
0:17:27 > 0:17:30At this point, Assurant liaised with the British Transport Police,
0:17:30 > 0:17:33who have authority over the UK's rail networks,
0:17:33 > 0:17:36including the London Underground.
0:17:36 > 0:17:40DC Darren Griffiths took on the investigation.
0:17:40 > 0:17:43He went through the phone recordings made when the losses were reported,
0:17:43 > 0:17:45and the similarities were striking.
0:17:47 > 0:17:51It was the same story, the same script he was going by every time,
0:17:51 > 0:17:52and basically what he'd say,
0:17:52 > 0:17:55his phone would have been lost - it would have been lost on a train.
0:17:55 > 0:17:56He'd give the reference number,
0:17:56 > 0:17:59and then he'd ask for a handset replacement.
0:17:59 > 0:18:01By sifting through the evidence,
0:18:01 > 0:18:04Darren was able to figure out how the scam worked.
0:18:04 > 0:18:07The phones were real.
0:18:07 > 0:18:08The claims, in a sense,
0:18:08 > 0:18:11are not real because he never actually lost the phone.
0:18:11 > 0:18:15He's got a phone, and he's basically obtaining a second phone
0:18:15 > 0:18:17on the strength of saying, "I've lost one,"
0:18:17 > 0:18:20so he'll get a replacement or a cash reimbursement.
0:18:20 > 0:18:23The replacement phones were then sold on the black market
0:18:23 > 0:18:24for a tidy profit,
0:18:24 > 0:18:27and any reimbursements were banked.
0:18:27 > 0:18:31However, he'd made one basic error, for which he'd pay the price.
0:18:33 > 0:18:35The voice was very similar all the time,
0:18:35 > 0:18:37so they believed it was the same person.
0:18:48 > 0:18:52And all the losses occurred a suspiciously short time after
0:18:52 > 0:18:53the insurance was taken out.
0:19:06 > 0:19:07At this point,
0:19:07 > 0:19:11it seemed a large-scale fraud was being attempted,
0:19:11 > 0:19:14so they followed the money trail.
0:19:14 > 0:19:16The bank account always has to come back to somebody
0:19:16 > 0:19:20and that way we really sort of narrowed it down.
0:19:21 > 0:19:24To one person - a man called Lateef Irawo.
0:19:25 > 0:19:28Mr Irawo came up as owning those bank accounts,
0:19:28 > 0:19:32where he had contact with or control of with those bank accounts.
0:19:32 > 0:19:36But the sheer number of claims he'd made using his details -
0:19:36 > 0:19:40name, address and bank account - meant the scam hit a snag.
0:19:40 > 0:19:43Mr Irawo was, sort of, running out of options.
0:19:43 > 0:19:46The insurance company was getting wise to him and refusing
0:19:46 > 0:19:48a lot of the claims he was making.
0:20:07 > 0:20:10That silence was deafening.
0:20:10 > 0:20:12As if submitting fake claims wasn't bad enough,
0:20:12 > 0:20:17he decided to up the ante by branching into identity theft.
0:20:17 > 0:20:20This was his blatant attempt to cover his tracks when
0:20:20 > 0:20:23he took out the insurance contracts.
0:20:23 > 0:20:28He was using different identities, pretending to be someone else.
0:20:28 > 0:20:30There would be different addresses,
0:20:30 > 0:20:32but the pattern would start coming in again,
0:20:32 > 0:20:35cos he'd have to change it somewhere along the line for him to benefit,
0:20:35 > 0:20:36for him to get the gain.
0:20:36 > 0:20:39And to get the replacement phone, it has to be sent to an address
0:20:39 > 0:20:40where he can pick it up from.
0:20:40 > 0:20:43This meant he had to change the false address he'd given
0:20:43 > 0:20:45when taking out the contract.
0:20:59 > 0:21:01Like most fraudsters,
0:21:01 > 0:21:05Irawo tried to maximise the income from the identities he'd stolen.
0:21:05 > 0:21:10Experience has shown us that they don't just open one contract.
0:21:10 > 0:21:12They'll go down the high streets,
0:21:12 > 0:21:14they'll open a contract in all the providers,
0:21:14 > 0:21:16get as many phones as they can with that ID.
0:21:16 > 0:21:18So, it's not usually one phone to one person -
0:21:18 > 0:21:22it could end up with four or five phones against their name.
0:21:22 > 0:21:25But this tactic only worked up to a point -
0:21:25 > 0:21:29his victims soon became aware that their details had been stolen.
0:21:29 > 0:21:31We did checks with Action Fraud
0:21:31 > 0:21:33to see if these people had actually reported in
0:21:33 > 0:21:36and a majority of them actually had reported losses.
0:22:04 > 0:22:08Irawo was being pursued from every direction.
0:22:08 > 0:22:13The BTP made its move and raided an address associated with him.
0:22:13 > 0:22:16Pieces of suspect paperwork were found.
0:22:16 > 0:22:18Several of them turned out to be fraudulent documents,
0:22:18 > 0:22:20counterfeit documents,
0:22:20 > 0:22:23and this would be either utility bills or identity documents.
0:22:23 > 0:22:25The evidence against him was overwhelming,
0:22:25 > 0:22:28and Irawo was arrested and finally brought to justice.
0:22:28 > 0:22:30Mr Irawo was found...
0:22:30 > 0:22:33He pleaded guilty to the conspiracy
0:22:33 > 0:22:35and to the possession of articles for use in fraud
0:22:35 > 0:22:37and to the money-laundering.
0:22:37 > 0:22:39Mr Irawo received three years' imprisonment.
0:22:39 > 0:22:41It was a good result, really,
0:22:41 > 0:22:43for the courts to hand out a heavy sentence.
0:22:43 > 0:22:47Sentenced alongside him were Timothy Edembe Ikome and Ayeni Adekunle,
0:22:47 > 0:22:50who both received 21 months inside.
0:22:50 > 0:22:52It's not just a one-off.
0:22:52 > 0:22:55This was almost a campaign by Mr Irawo to try
0:22:55 > 0:22:58and defraud the insurance company.
0:22:58 > 0:23:01There's a renewed determination to bring the people behind
0:23:01 > 0:23:03these crimes to justice.
0:23:03 > 0:23:05This is a career criminal, really.
0:23:05 > 0:23:10I mean, he spent three years making his living from fraud,
0:23:10 > 0:23:13and why should people get away with making fraudulent claims?
0:23:13 > 0:23:15It's theft at the end of the day.
0:23:15 > 0:23:16It's stealing.
0:23:23 > 0:23:29Later, a social media check pulls the plug on a dodgy claim...
0:23:29 > 0:23:33The so-called independent witness was known to the claimant for
0:23:33 > 0:23:36at least a year before the trial date.
0:23:36 > 0:23:39..and a wife plots to murder her husband in cold blood
0:23:39 > 0:23:41for his life insurance.
0:23:51 > 0:23:53Now, with phones getting ever smarter,
0:23:53 > 0:23:56greater CCTV coverage and the rise of social media,
0:23:56 > 0:23:59it's not just TV presenters who are constantly being filmed.
0:23:59 > 0:24:03So, it is easy to forget you're on camera 24/7,
0:24:03 > 0:24:05which isn't normally a problem,
0:24:05 > 0:24:09unless you're a fraudster trying to make a fake insurance claim.
0:24:15 > 0:24:19In cases where it's one person's word against another's,
0:24:19 > 0:24:22a few seconds of footage can make all the difference.
0:24:26 > 0:24:30Julie Randall is the claims team manager for First Group.
0:24:30 > 0:24:35She recently dealt with a case involving one of their buses.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38This claim arose as a result of our bus clipping the wing mirror
0:24:38 > 0:24:41of a third-party vehicle.
0:24:41 > 0:24:42It was a very minor accident.
0:24:42 > 0:24:44In fact, there was no damage to our bus and there was
0:24:44 > 0:24:47no damage to the wing mirror.
0:24:47 > 0:24:50Nor was there any damage to the passengers.
0:24:50 > 0:24:53No injuries were reported at the time of the accident.
0:24:53 > 0:24:55The incident was noted
0:24:55 > 0:24:58and, in most cases, that would have been that.
0:24:58 > 0:25:00However, the following day,
0:25:00 > 0:25:03we had a phone call from the father of one of the passengers.
0:25:03 > 0:25:06He alleged that his daughter had been thrown out of her seat
0:25:06 > 0:25:08to the floor, she sustained a nasty head injury,
0:25:08 > 0:25:11and had to be taken to the hospital.
0:25:11 > 0:25:15According to the woman, she'd been seriously hurt.
0:25:15 > 0:25:19The claimant alleged that she'd sustained injuries to her neck,
0:25:19 > 0:25:21to her upper and lower back, to her shoulders,
0:25:21 > 0:25:25she'd sustained soft-tissue damage to her left ankle,
0:25:25 > 0:25:28and also pins and needles in her left leg.
0:25:28 > 0:25:31She also sustained severe psychological problems,
0:25:31 > 0:25:34including nightmares, fear of travel,
0:25:34 > 0:25:36she had flashbacks of the accident,
0:25:36 > 0:25:39and she was quite distraught over the whole thing.
0:25:39 > 0:25:41Well, given the severity of the incident,
0:25:41 > 0:25:45the potential cost of the claim was substantial.
0:25:45 > 0:25:47With the injuries this lady sustained,
0:25:47 > 0:25:50we would have expected to put a value of £12,000.
0:25:50 > 0:25:53This would be made up on her damages for both her physical
0:25:53 > 0:25:56and her psychological injuries, her treatment fees,
0:25:56 > 0:25:58and also her legal costs.
0:25:58 > 0:26:03But something about the claim didn't ring true.
0:26:03 > 0:26:05Bearing in mind it was only a clipped wing mirror sustained
0:26:05 > 0:26:09by our bus, we were extremely surprised and suspicious when
0:26:09 > 0:26:11a claim came in for personal injury.
0:26:11 > 0:26:16It was only minor damage and the injuries were quite severe.
0:26:16 > 0:26:20Julie immediately launched an investigation.
0:26:20 > 0:26:21Once we receive the call,
0:26:21 > 0:26:25we decided to go back and watch the CCTV footage.
0:26:25 > 0:26:28Our buses are fitted with over 17 cameras,
0:26:28 > 0:26:31so we obviously had a good view of the upper deck,
0:26:31 > 0:26:34and the lower deck, and the outside of the bus.
0:26:34 > 0:26:37Considering the list of injuries we had presented to us,
0:26:37 > 0:26:39I was expecting to see quite a traumatic event,
0:26:39 > 0:26:41watching the footage.
0:26:41 > 0:26:44I was expecting to see the claimant thrown from her seat,
0:26:44 > 0:26:47hitting her head on the seat in front, thrown to the floor,
0:26:47 > 0:26:50rolling around in extreme pain, and screaming her head off.
0:26:50 > 0:26:55Julie rewound the footage to a few moments before the impact occurred.
0:26:55 > 0:26:58Look away now if you don't want to see a nasty accident.
0:27:00 > 0:27:02So, I'm waiting for the collision to happen,
0:27:02 > 0:27:07and you can see the car coming along the side of the bus.
0:27:07 > 0:27:08I can see the claimant.
0:27:08 > 0:27:11She's actually texting away on her phone.
0:27:11 > 0:27:14And I'm just waiting for it to happen, and...
0:27:17 > 0:27:19..nothing's happened.
0:27:19 > 0:27:21Although she has carried on texting on her phone,
0:27:21 > 0:27:24and she's not lost her place on the keypad.
0:27:24 > 0:27:27Remember, this was an accident for which she was
0:27:27 > 0:27:30trying to claim £12,000.
0:27:30 > 0:27:32We did wonder whether or not we'd pulled the right footage,
0:27:32 > 0:27:35considering what she was claiming for, so we checked our disks
0:27:35 > 0:27:36and, yes, it was the right one.
0:27:36 > 0:27:39I was quite staggered, the lengths that this lady went to.
0:27:39 > 0:27:43We later found out that she had actually gone to hospital
0:27:43 > 0:27:45and she had seen a consultant.
0:27:45 > 0:27:47That was quite shocking to us.
0:27:47 > 0:27:50And she may well have prevented a genuinely injured person
0:27:50 > 0:27:52having urgent treatment.
0:27:52 > 0:27:57Predictably, the £12,000 wasn't handed over.
0:27:57 > 0:27:59This claim was clearly a complete fabrication,
0:27:59 > 0:28:04and we provided the CCTV footage and our evidence to her solicitors.
0:28:04 > 0:28:07Unsurprisingly, they went away very quickly.
0:28:07 > 0:28:11We had no intention of paying this completely fabricated claim.
0:28:11 > 0:28:14The claimant evidently underestimated how far
0:28:14 > 0:28:17the fraud team would go to get the truth.
0:28:17 > 0:28:19I don't think this lady really thought her claim through
0:28:19 > 0:28:21when she presented the lies that she did.
0:28:21 > 0:28:23She lied to her own medical examiner.
0:28:23 > 0:28:25She lied to the A&E consultant.
0:28:25 > 0:28:27She lied to her own solicitor.
0:28:27 > 0:28:29But the camera never lies,
0:28:29 > 0:28:33and that's what exposed the claim as a sham.
0:28:33 > 0:28:34There is no getting away with it.
0:28:34 > 0:28:36If we catch you, and we will,
0:28:36 > 0:28:39we will pursue you through the criminal and the civil courts.
0:28:43 > 0:28:46Social media is everywhere these days.
0:28:46 > 0:28:48With a few clicks and the odd scroll,
0:28:48 > 0:28:50you can see people's updates, photos,
0:28:50 > 0:28:52check who's friends with who,
0:28:52 > 0:28:55or who's de-friended you.
0:28:55 > 0:28:57That's awkward.
0:28:57 > 0:29:00So, when fraudsters try to take a swipe at insurance premiums,
0:29:00 > 0:29:03they can find themselves caught in a web of their own making.
0:29:06 > 0:29:10Mihir Pandya is the fraud manager at Allianz.
0:29:10 > 0:29:13He recently dealt with a case involving a road traffic accident.
0:29:15 > 0:29:19We were initially presented with five injury claims
0:29:19 > 0:29:21from individuals who alleged
0:29:21 > 0:29:24that our policy holder's delivery van driver
0:29:24 > 0:29:27had crashed into their stationary car while they were inside it.
0:29:29 > 0:29:34According to the claimants, they'd suffered significant injuries.
0:29:34 > 0:29:38Each of the five personal injury claims that we received were
0:29:38 > 0:29:41in the region of £2,500.
0:29:42 > 0:29:46Adding up to a cool £12,500.
0:29:46 > 0:29:49Clearly, the case warranted further investigation.
0:29:49 > 0:29:52It was at this point that the personal injury claims started
0:29:52 > 0:29:54to look a little shaky.
0:29:54 > 0:29:58Our policy holder's delivery van driver's version of events
0:29:58 > 0:30:01differed greatly to that provided to us by the claimants.
0:30:03 > 0:30:04According to her,
0:30:04 > 0:30:08she was driving down what was a very narrow street and she noticed
0:30:08 > 0:30:11at the time that there were two individuals exiting
0:30:11 > 0:30:14from a local chemist shop, walking towards the car
0:30:14 > 0:30:19and, as she drove past them, that's when she heard a scraping noise.
0:30:19 > 0:30:24On looking in the mirror, she saw the same two individuals standing
0:30:24 > 0:30:30next to the car with both doors open and the male was flagging her down.
0:30:30 > 0:30:33That's when she realised that she may have scraped the car.
0:30:33 > 0:30:36The side of the car might have needed some work
0:30:36 > 0:30:40but, according to the van driver, at least no-one had been hurt.
0:30:40 > 0:30:45She exchanged details with the two individuals and she tells us
0:30:45 > 0:30:48that she was there at the scene for at least 25 minutes and,
0:30:48 > 0:30:52during that time, she didn't see any passengers emerge from the car,
0:30:52 > 0:30:55nor could she see anybody from outside looking in.
0:30:56 > 0:31:00So how did a dented panel on an empty car result in
0:31:00 > 0:31:04a huge compensation claim for five people?
0:31:04 > 0:31:06Well, it didn't.
0:31:06 > 0:31:10In our view, the personal injury claims were fictitious.
0:31:11 > 0:31:13Sadly, this is nothing new.
0:31:13 > 0:31:16The phenomenon even has its own name.
0:31:16 > 0:31:18"Phantom passengers."
0:31:18 > 0:31:21Phantom passengers are where fictitious passengers
0:31:21 > 0:31:24are added to the claim to inflate the total value.
0:31:25 > 0:31:29The more people, the more injuries, the more compensation.
0:31:29 > 0:31:32But, Allianz saw through this tactic.
0:31:32 > 0:31:36We repudiated the claims based on the information we had
0:31:36 > 0:31:37in our possession
0:31:37 > 0:31:40and subsequently, some months later,
0:31:40 > 0:31:43four of the claimants issued proceedings against us.
0:31:45 > 0:31:48This took quite some nerve, seeing as none of them had been in
0:31:48 > 0:31:53the car at the time and at least two had never even been at the scene.
0:31:53 > 0:31:57At this point, another figure appeared from out of nowhere.
0:31:57 > 0:32:02About three months before the trial dates, the claimant's side
0:32:02 > 0:32:06produced what they said was an independent witness.
0:32:08 > 0:32:11Not only had the van driver not been aware of a witness,
0:32:11 > 0:32:14but the timing was somewhat suspicious.
0:32:14 > 0:32:18Normally we would expect, if there was an independent witness,
0:32:18 > 0:32:21for this to be presented at the start.
0:32:21 > 0:32:24Because we thought this was a little unusual,
0:32:24 > 0:32:30we undertook some checks, one of which was looking at social media.
0:32:31 > 0:32:37This identified that, in fact, the so-called independent witness
0:32:37 > 0:32:42was known to the claimant for at least a year before the trial date.
0:32:42 > 0:32:45Their social media profiles had forced a shutdown.
0:32:46 > 0:32:49And as a result, the independent witness could
0:32:49 > 0:32:51not be described as independent.
0:32:51 > 0:32:54Meaning that their credibility was fatally flawed.
0:32:55 > 0:32:59During the trial, the judge agreed with our view
0:32:59 > 0:33:02and so refused to have her evidence submitted.
0:33:04 > 0:33:05As the trial progressed,
0:33:05 > 0:33:09the claimants watched their chances dwindle away.
0:33:09 > 0:33:13The judge wasn't very impressed with the quality of the evidence
0:33:13 > 0:33:18provided by the claimants either and, in his view, there were
0:33:18 > 0:33:22no passengers in the car, so threw the entire claim out.
0:33:22 > 0:33:25And there was a further ruling which left our phantom passengers
0:33:25 > 0:33:28wishing they really could disappear.
0:33:29 > 0:33:33He also ordered them to pay our legal costs.
0:33:33 > 0:33:35The fact that they've also ended up with
0:33:35 > 0:33:39a considerable bill for legal costs means that they are
0:33:39 > 0:33:42effectively worse off than when they started.
0:33:48 > 0:33:51Any problems we have with insurance fraud in the UK pale
0:33:51 > 0:33:55in comparison to the scams that are pulled in the States.
0:33:55 > 0:33:59US fraudsters will stop at nothing to get their hands on a pay-out,
0:33:59 > 0:34:01even if it means committing the ultimate evil.
0:34:12 > 0:34:14Meet Julia Merfeld.
0:34:18 > 0:34:20The young mother of two is seen here meeting
0:34:20 > 0:34:21a contact for the first time.
0:34:26 > 0:34:29From the clip, Julia appears relaxed and cheerful,
0:34:29 > 0:34:31as she tries to juggle her schedule.
0:34:43 > 0:34:45The topic then moves on to money.
0:34:45 > 0:34:46A lot of money.
0:35:06 > 0:35:08Now, if you're thinking
0:35:08 > 0:35:10there's something strange about this scenario,
0:35:10 > 0:35:12not least the fact that it's all been recorded
0:35:12 > 0:35:16on a hidden camera, then you'd be right. This is no innocent chat.
0:35:16 > 0:35:20Julia Merfeld is speaking to a hit man and she's arranging for him
0:35:20 > 0:35:25to murder her husband, the father of her children, in cold blood.
0:35:25 > 0:35:26But there's a twist.
0:35:26 > 0:35:29The hit man is actually an undercover police officer.
0:35:42 > 0:35:46Which was worth a huge 400,000.
0:35:46 > 0:35:49With the camera rolling, the officer has to get Merfeld to admit
0:35:49 > 0:35:52as much as possible, which means going into specifics.
0:36:04 > 0:36:06In order to win Merfeld's trust,
0:36:06 > 0:36:09the officer needs to put on the performance of his life.
0:36:24 > 0:36:27Evidently, Merfeld has already put a lot of thought into the hit.
0:36:57 > 0:37:00The only time Merfeld shows any concern is when she
0:37:00 > 0:37:03speculates that a burglary-gone-wrong scenario
0:37:03 > 0:37:06might be off-putting for a potential housemate.
0:37:22 > 0:37:26She is also keen that the murder doesn't happen inside the property.
0:37:50 > 0:37:53To guarantee she gets the life insurance pay-out,
0:37:53 > 0:37:55Merfeld is keen to put on a good show.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08While the evidence on camera is strong, the officer needs to
0:38:08 > 0:38:11make sure there can be no doubt about Merfeld's intent.
0:38:26 > 0:38:29He rounds things up and arranges to meet again.
0:38:54 > 0:38:56The next day, the officer waits.
0:38:56 > 0:38:59Whether Merfeld returns is a test of how convincing he's been.
0:39:05 > 0:39:07But she's here, and she's come prepared.
0:39:39 > 0:39:41But she's yet to hand over the money,
0:39:41 > 0:39:44something that could prove to be a vital piece of evidence.
0:39:58 > 0:40:01She appears to be justifying her actions
0:40:01 > 0:40:04as a twisted act of kindness to spare him going through a divorce.
0:40:09 > 0:40:10From the officer's point of view,
0:40:10 > 0:40:13it's vital that there's no ambiguity.
0:40:13 > 0:40:15He needs to push her into specifics.
0:41:12 > 0:41:15For the first time, she looks troubled.
0:41:15 > 0:41:18The officer steers the conversation towards money.
0:41:23 > 0:41:27If she hands over the down payment, he's got proof of her intent.
0:41:43 > 0:41:46At this point, he makes it clear there's no backing down.
0:41:58 > 0:42:00The officer gives her a final warning.
0:42:00 > 0:42:03If she's going to call it off, it has to be now.
0:42:27 > 0:42:30But there are no second thoughts and no mercy.
0:42:30 > 0:42:32Shortly afterwards, she was arrested
0:42:32 > 0:42:36and eventually pleaded guilty to solicitation to murder.
0:42:36 > 0:42:38Amazingly, her husband stood by her,
0:42:38 > 0:42:42saying, "She had been nothing but a great mother to our two children."
0:42:42 > 0:42:44However, the judge thought otherwise
0:42:44 > 0:42:48and sentenced her to more than five years and eight months behind bars.
0:42:53 > 0:42:57Nobody likes paying more than we have to for everyday services.
0:42:57 > 0:43:00From organised criminal gangs to exaggerated household claims,
0:43:00 > 0:43:04insurance fraud hits all of us in the pocket.
0:43:04 > 0:43:06But, instead of getting away with it,
0:43:06 > 0:43:10more and more of these fraudsters are being claimed and shamed.