fraud

Jared Savage has written an article about benefit fraud. Apparently, shock horror, it has trebled from 5 years ago:

Benefit fraud cost taxpayers a record $22.6 million last year, and nine social welfare staff were sacked for ripping off the system.

Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show fraud detected by the Ministry of Social Development has tripled from $7.5 million five years ago.

At that time, the ministry set up a fraud intelligence unit because of an international trend towards increasingly elaborate scams, including the use of stolen and faked identities, said chief executive Peter Hughes.

The ministry had also been embarrassed by Wayne Patterson, who used 123 fake identities to steal $3.4 million over two years – or $56,000 a fortnight – before he was caught in 2006 and jailed for eight years.

His offending is still the largest benefit fraud – the second largest amount stolen was $571,000 in 2008.

Oh right so it tripled because they are detecting it better…that is a good thing.

However it hasn’t tripled, the fraud has always been there and under Labour there was a dis-inclination to care about it.

But let me tell you…their fraud is quite a bit larger than $22 million. That is only what they publicly admit to. In private the numbers are more like $200 million. The trouble is most of the staff who can do anything about this are wombles who wear grey Julius Marlow double zip shoes, tan knee socks, tan walk shorts and yellow shorts with big lapels, even in summer they ear their grey cardigan with leather buttons. I know this because I have met them.

Back in 2000 their state of the art fraud department consisted of the aforementioned womble and a couple of helpers using state of the art analysis tools like Excel.

Proper data visualisation tools or appropriately designed farud detections suites were and probably still are non-existant. I know this must be the case because otherwise  the cases like Wayne Patterson’s wouldn’t be happening.

Looks like global warming has its benefits after all:

Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.

The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.

Researchers used data on the Earth’s orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.

In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years – but emissions have been so high that it will not.

“At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we’d probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down,” said Luke Skinner from Cambridge University.

Dr Skinner’s group – which also included scientists from University College London, the University of Florida and Norway’s Bergen University – calculates that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would have to fall below about 240 parts per million (ppm) before the glaciation could begin.

The current level is around 390ppm.

Other research groups have shown that even if emissions were shut off instantly, concentrations would remain elevated for at least 1,000 years, with enough heat stored in the oceans potentially to cause significant melting of polar ice and sea level rise.

Great news, I’d rather be hot than have an ice age….funny thing is the warmist would rather we all freeze, not that I care anyway it is a whole 1500 years way.

No not a lifestyle comparison, a regulatory authority and judicial comparison between NZ and Queensland:

The Queensland Government, determined to get back all of the A$11 million (NZ$14m) allegedly stolen by accused Queensland Health fraudster Joel Morehu-Barlow, has frozen assets including a blanket and a pillow.

Authorities are also seeking property belonging to Morehu-Barlow’s sister in their bid to recover some of the funds he allegedly siphoned from Queensland Health in the five years he worked there.

Morehu-Barlow is charged with defrauding Queensland Health of A$11m and is due to reappear in Brisbane Magistrates Court on Monday.

Police are also investigating allegations he stole a further A$5m.

In the Supreme Court in Brisbane yesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought two further restraining orders on various items including motor vehicles and jet skis, the Courier-Mail reported.

The Government previously restrained property such as units, money, paintings, clothing and even a blanket and pillow.

Morehu-Barlow was not in court yesterday but Justice Martin Daubney said his lawyers had been told.

The state also sought to have property held by Morehu-Barlow’s sister Kelli-Ann Barlow restrained.

In Australia they charge you first, then they seek asset freezes. Here in New Zealand the statutory authorities conduct a PR exercise, hurl around accusations, then go to court but not to charge you, rather they seek to freeze your assets first, then they stretch out their investigation for more than a year and still ahve no charges laid, but continually tell the Judge that they are nearly there could the freeze please stay in place, and then when patience is almost at an end from the judge they say that they won’t be laying criminal charges which have a far higher threshold for the burden of proof, no instead they say that after Christmas that they might lay civil charges, which of course are still not laid. All this time the so far innocent party still has his assets frozen.

Looks like there is a veritable chasm between our two jurisdictions not only in competency but also in natural justice.

Seems like there are more Peter Freedom’s out there roaming the world on our ticket. National needs to boot the MSD wallies in the arse for ceasing data-matching.

Almost $19 million was overpaid in one year to people who left New Zealand while still receiving a benefit, Government documents show.

The true figure could be higher, as Social Development Ministry staff were told to stop looking for overpayments and concentrate instead on clearing the backlog of debt.

The data, revealed in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s annual report this month, shows weekly data checks with the Inland Revenue Department found 54,032 possible matches for overpaid clients.

Of these, 28,325 had been overpaid a total of $18,915,102 – an average of $667 each.

The commissioner’s report noted that the number and value of overpayments found by the ministry had doubled since the previous year.

“In September, MSD decided to cease matching work on some client cases (in advance of system changes) with Inland Revenue, and reallocate resources to this programme to clear a backlog of work.”

The ministry’s general manager of integrity services, Justine Auton, said it was a beneficiary’s duty to advise staff if they were leaving the country.

“These are clients who failed to meet their legal obligation and tell us that they were going overseas,” she said.

A rorting doctor who ripped off taxpayers health dollars to the tune of thousands had “good character” references from a couple of MPs.

An Auckland GP who has been punished for doctoring patients files to rort health authorities now faces losing his medical licence.

Dr Hong Sheng Kong, 44, of Pakuranga, was sentenced to a year’s home detention and 400 hours community service last November after he admitted dishonesty charges in the Auckland District Court.

At his Panmure practice thousands of alterations were made to computer records on which claims for taxpayer funding were based.

The amount of the fraudulent conduct was $183,134.

There is still a civil action pending amounting to over $3million from the ADHB. You have to wonder at the judgment of MPs who are giving character references for convicted fraudsters.

The 44-year-old GP’s lawyer, Harry Waalkens, QC, gave the tribunal excerpts of character references, including from National’s Jackie Blue and Labour’s Raymond Huo.

Arguing for a suspension from practising – to be imposed only if there was re-offending – he said Kong’s services as a Chinese-speaking doctor were needed here. He also said Mr Huo was a patient of Kong’s, was aware of the convictions and had said: “‘It would be a massive loss to the community if [Dr Kong's service] were no longer’ available.”

Mr Huo declined to discuss the matter with the Herald yesterday.

Dr Blue told the Herald Kong was genuinely remorseful for his mistakes, he was a good doctor and he had the support of the Chinese community.

The NBR has comments from the Police Association slamming the conduct of SFO Chief Executive Adam Feeley:

The conduct of Serious Fraud Office director Adam Feeley would not have been tolerated if the agency had merged with the police.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor gave a barbed answer when asked if Mr Feeley’s reported behaviour would be tolerated by senior members of the New Zealand Police.

“Mr Feeley’s probably very lucky there was no amalgamation,” Mr O’Connor said.

A merger of the SFO and the police was mooted in 2008 but the incoming National government scotched the proposal.

The National Business Review understands revelations about Mr Feeley’s conduct have caused Police Minister Judith Collins and the SFO considerable concern.

Of course it is concerning, this guy is supposed to be the top fraud cop in New Zealand and he shamefully lifted a bottle of plonk from the property of the receivers of a company that was subsequently charged byt eh Serious Fraud Office.

There is another concerning development in this who saga too:

NBR understands Mr Feeley is a member of Auckland’s Northern Club, having been sponsored into the exclusive membership by Crown solicitor and regular SFO prosecutor Simon Moore.

That is an outrageous conflict of interest. The Crown Solicitor must be above anything that suggests favours or untoward behaviour. There is no way that he should have sponsored Feeley into the Northern Club.

It will be interesting to know how much extra work Meredith Connell has gained since Feeley joined the Northern Club? All this smacks of the boys at the top end sorting out things for themselves with little or no regard to the law or to appearance.

Jared Savage has what surely must be the last nail in Adam Feeley’s coffin:

The head of the Serious Fraud Office gave copies of Allan Hubbard’s biography as “booby” prizes at a staff Christmas party while the former Rich Lister was under investigation.

Adam Feeley, the SFO chief executive, gave handcrafted wooden statues to winners at a joke prize-giving last December and paperback editions of “Allan Hubbard: A Man Out of Time” to the runners-up.

At the time, Mr Hubbard’s South Canterbury Finance was in statutory management after a $1.8 billionGovernment bailout and the Timaru accountant was being investigated by the SFO.

Six months after the Christmas party, the SFO laid 50 charges against the 83-year-old, who denied any wrongdoing.

The calls for his resignation are growing:

Pressure has mounted on Mr Feeley this week and yesterday, a top Auckland criminal lawyer called for his resignation over the champagne incident.

“He’s in a position of responsibility and I think he’s shown absolutely poor judgment,” said Criminal Bar Association president Tony Bouchier.

“They had a celebratory drink – that on its own is not so bad, but the SFO really have got to be seen to be absolutely unbiased.”

This latest incident just shows that the culture at the SFO under Adam Feeley has deteriorated significantly. THere can only be one person responsible for that.

The Herald Editorial lets rip:

Adam Feeley, director of the Serious Fraud Office, let more than his hair down when he invited staff to a celebration of the laying of charges against Bridgecorp director Rod Petricevic. He also let down his position.

He did not quietly invite his team to a drink, which might be normal at the end of a busy week, he issued the invitation by email, announcing they could “celebrate” with champagne “that previously resided in Rod Petricevic’s office”.

Email is a dangerous medium. It is impossible to control its circulation and it is easily saved for evidence. Worse, there is something about the medium that tempts even cautious people to be clever, ironical and indiscreet.

Mr Feeley is just the latest sender to discover that what seemed entertaining when he pressed the button loses much of its charm in the public domain.

The old rule about email is never put anything in email that you wouldn’t put on a postcard.

It may be argued whether the greater offence is that he helped himself to Bridgecorp’s bubbles in the first place. Mr Feeley has explained that he came by it in his previous position heading the Eden Park Redevelopment Board.

The project used premises previously occupied by Bridgecorp and “three or four bottles of champagne were left behind after the sudden exit of the directors”, he says.

The right thing to do would have been to pass the bottle to the company’s liquidators, but how many in this situation would have bothered? It is easy to be righteous with the benefit of hindsight. The difference between Mr Feeley and most people is that Mr Feeley was subsequently appointed head of the SFO and he still kept a bottle of Bridgecorp’s wine.

He kept it to open, on behalf of the public perhaps, when his office had successfully completed its investigation. “Successful” in this context means the gathering of sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges – a court will decide whether the material is sufficient to find anyone guilty. Mr Feeley will hope the office celebration is ignored when the court weighs everything up.

This important, Five Fingers Feeley celebrated the laying of charges, there is no success in that. CHarges are laid everyday and routinely tossed out as well.

His judgment was seriously flawed in several respects: knowingly keeping the Bridgecorp bottle, holding a premature celebration of a case yet to begin, and then openly advertising the drinks and provenance of the bottle to a staff which included some who might have to give evidence in the case.

At one level it is understandable that, on a big project, those involved want to relax once a milestone is achieved. Fraud is said to be the hardest category of crime to prove. Intent is necessary and is often hard to establish. Suspects usually have resources and access to a first-class legal defence.

Mr Feeley was appointed to head the office not quite two years ago. He quickly carried out a restructuring under which some of the office’s senior staff departed, raising concerns at a loss of institutional knowledge and experience.

But criticism of the SFO’s performance had reached a point that the previous Government intended to submerge it in the police. The present Government reversed that decision and put Mr Feeley in charge.

A year ago he had to announce that insufficient evidence of fraud had been found in the Blue Chip group of companies and no charges would be laid. In June he made the same announcement in two other finance company cases. The investigation of Hanover Finance is taking its time.

It is easy to imagine why the office would be relieved at taking a big case to court, but not easy to conceive of a director marking it so inappropriately, with the accused’s wine.

The minister in charge, Judith Collins, has referred the incident to the State Services Commission, the referee of public employment. It may not warrant a red card but a serious caution would be in order.

Actually I think a red card is in order. It is totally inappropriate to filch a bottle of plonk either percieved or actual if you are the head of the SFO. Caesar’s wife springs to mind.

“Five Fingers” Adam Feeley’s job may be on the line after Judith Collins, the minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office referred the matter tot he State Services Commission.

The head of the Serious Fraud Office is facing an employment investigation for celebrating criminal charges against Rod Petricevic by serving to staff champagne belonging to Bridgecorp directors.

And a legal expert says it is disappointing to see such behaviour from a government department responsible for such high-level investigations.

A spokesman for Serious Fraud Office Minister Judith Collins said she had referred SFO head Adam Feeley’s actions to the State Services Commissioner, his employer.

Prominent lawyer Nigel Hampton, QC, said last night that Mr Feeley’s actions were “not appropriate at all”.

“A, to celebrate as it were steps along the way and then to publicise it is not appropriate. And B, to do it with property that arguably isn’t yours anyhow seems to me to be rather questionable in its own right. Just because it’s left over or sitting in someone’s office doesn’t make it yours,” he said.

“This is supposed to be an agency that is created to uphold certain principles as to appropriate ownership.”

Mr Hampton said the incident had potential to harm the SFO’s court case against Bridgecorp.

“In the hands of a capable questioner, [the incident] can make them look rather embarrassed and lessen their credibility.

“I think it’s disappointing. You wouldn’t expect, part way through a task, the Commissioner of Police inappropriately celebrating a step along the way in an investigation.”

It is highly inappropriate that the boss of the countries top law enforcement organisation misappropriated the assets, no matter how small, of the shareholders, receivers and liquidators of Bridgecorp, then skited about it to staff and then rubbed those charged noses in the fact by quaffing the stolen assets at a party.

The problem Five Fingers Feeley has is that he doesn’t think he did anything wrong.

This is the guy who is in the paper and news more than tv celebrities and boasting all the time about what his agency is going to do. Compare the incidence of Adam Feeley in the news with that of new Police Commissioner Peter Marshall.The SFO regularly leaks details of investigations and seems to conduct itself as though they are the Untouchables. This case just highlights the culture that exists and has been allowed to fester at the SFO.

Five Fingers Feeley might have got away with this sort of behaviour under CHris Finlayson or Simon power but I doubt he will get off scot free under The Crusher.

This isn’t at all surprising, but watch the warmists desperately try to ignore it. A former warmist writes about the problems in climate science.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

Yes let’s.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

Cheating, lying and hiding the decline.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

Yep there is no point is doing anything, certainly it is a waste of effort, resources, time and most importantly money in trying to halt that which cannot be halted.