Why should we conduct searches on individuals in their teens?

Many of us believe that there is no reason to conduct a background check on an individual below the age of 18. The following story is an example of searching the individuals criminal record as far back as possible.

From the Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A grand jury on Wednesday indicted a 15-year-old girl on a charge of first-degree murder in the slaying of her 9-year-old neighbor.

Alyssa Bustamante is accused of killing Elizabeth Olten by strangling the victim, cutting her throat and stabbing her on Oct. 21.

Bustamante also is charged with armed criminal action for allegedly using a knife in the attack.

The indictment came hours after Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled Bustamante should face trial as an adult. She is being held without bond in Cole County jail.

The teen, who sat silently through the proceedings in an orange prison jumpsuit and handcuffs, was arrested on an adult charge of first-degree murder. She was scheduled to be arraigned later Wednesday.

To read the full story click here.

Violence in the Workplace

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics said 517 people were the victims of homicide in U.S. workplaces last year (2008), 413 by gunshot

NEW ACT ADDRESSES CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL SENTENCING

This is a press release from the Uniform Sentencing Commission regarding the impact of a criminal conviction.  The impact of a criminal convictionis often long lasting, farbeyond the jail time.

Uniform Law Commission 111 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 1010, Chicago, IL  60602 312-450-6600, www.nccusl.org Contact:  Katie Robinson, ULC Communications Officer, 312-450-6616 Michael Kerr, ULC Legislative Director, 312-450-6620 For Immediate Release: July 15, 2009 – A new act approved today by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), a national law reform group, addresses the consequences of the conviction of a crime that are imposed by law in addition to direct penalties imposed by the judge.  Traditionally, offenders are sentenced to fines, probation, and jail or prison terms.  When this punishment is complete, as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, the offender has done the time and repaid his or her debt to society.  However, today’s offenders learn – often too late – that they have only begun to suffer the consequences of their convictions after they have served their sentences. More and more, states are imposing subsequent penalties and disabilities on those convicted of particular crimes.  These “collateral consequences” are in addition to those imposed at sentencing. The sanctions vary from state to state, but they generally relate to restrictions on voting, occupational licensing, vehicle licensing, firearm restrictions, offender registration, and public benefits. Preliminary studies show that, in many states, literally hundreds of these consequences may apply.  Unlike direct consequences of conviction, collateral consequences are often unknown, may prove devastating, and often last a lifetime. To deal with this issue, the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act was approved today by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) at its 118th Annual Meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The provisions of the Uniform Act are largely procedural, and designed to rationalize and clarify polices and provisions which are already widely accepted in the states. The Act includes provisions to ensure that defendants are aware of the existence of collateral sanctions before conviction, are reminded of them at release, govern the effect of out of state convictions, and provide limited means by which some offenders may obtain relief from many such consequences. Concern about the impact of collateral consequences has grown in recent years as the numbers and complexity of these consequences have mushroomed and the U.S. prison population has grown. There is a real concern on a societal level that collateral consequences may impose such harsh burdens on convicted persons that they will be unable to reintegrate into society. In 1974, 1.8 million people had served time, or 1.3% or the adult population.  In 2001, 5.6 million people, or 2.7% of the adult population, had served time.  The Department of Justice estimates that if the 2001 imprisonment rate remains unchanged, 6.6% of Americans born in 2001 will serve prison time during their lives.  In addition to those who have served prison time, an even larger proportion of the population has been convicted of a criminal offense without going to prison.  According to a 2003 report of the Department of Justice, nearly 25% of the entire population (some 71 million people) had a criminal record. The Act requires collection in a single document all of the collateral sanctions and disqualifications contained in state statutes or administrative regulations.  Fortunately, this task has been simplified by a recent complimentary federal legislation which requires that the Director of the National Institute of Justice identify collateral sanctions in the constitution, codes and administrative rules of the 50 states and the territories.  Accordingly, the federal government will do the bulk of the initial work. As states grapple with various related issues – including reforming prison systems and releasing prisoners to balance budgets – the number of offenders impacted by collateral consequences continues to grow.  The Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act is an effort to clarify the state’s collateral consequences in such a way as to make the criminal justice system both smarter and fairer to all involved. Further information on the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act can be found at the ULC’s website at www.nccusl.org. The drafting committee on the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act was chaired by Richard T. Cassidy of Burlington, Vermont.  Other committee members included: Ann Walsh Bradley, Madison, Wisconsin; John M. Cary, Seattle, Washington; Brian K. Flowers, Washington, DC; Jessica French, Richmond, Virginia; Roger C. Henderson, Tucson, Arizona; H. Lane Kneedler, Richmond, Virginia; Harry D. Leinenweber, Chicago, Illinois; Marian P. Opala, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Raymond G. Sanchez, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Alexandra T. Schimmer, Columbus, Ohio; Paula Tackett, Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Michele L. Timmons, St. Paul, Minnesota.  Professor Jack Chin of the University of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona, served as the committee’s reporter. The Uniform Law Commission, now in its 118th year, comprises more than 300 practicing lawyers, governmental lawyers, judges, law professors, and lawyer-legislators from every state as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.   Uniform Law Commissioners are appointed by their states to draft and promote enactment of uniform laws that are designed to solve problems common to all the states. After receiving the ULC’s seal of approval, a uniform act is officially promulgated for consideration by the states, and legislatures are urged to adopt it.  Since its inception in 1892, the ULC has been responsible for more than 200 acts, among them such bulwarks of state statutory law as the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Partnership Act, and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

How does this employee pass a “background check”?

Image via Wikipedia

We wonder sometimes how this employee could have passed a background check. Perhaps the former employer(s) simply fired the employee for wrongdoing, thereby passing the problem on.  Should an employer press criminal charges to protect the next employer and the public?  Read the case below, when will an employer stop this person and charge her with criminal neglect, instead of firng for neglect?

Home health aide fired after neglecting severely ill kids

Employee was fired after family caught her actions on videotape, report discloses.

By MAURA LERNER, Star Tribune

Last update: June 3, 2009 – 12:55 AM

For months, a home health aide neglected two severely ill children, turning off their feeding tubes and skipping their medications while she slept on the job and had sex with a male visitor, according to an investigation by the Minnesota Office of Health Facility Complaints.

The aide, who was not identified, was fired after her actions were captured on videotape, the investigation found.

The case was one of several reports disclosed Tuesday by the state agency, which investigates complaints of poor care at hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies. It also cited two nursing homes for neglect in the deaths of two patients.

To read the complete story, click here

What is Identity Theft?

Image via Wikipedia

Has someone stolen your identity or have they used you to commit account fraud?  What is identity fraud?

Identify fraud, According to an article published at www.ojp.usdoj.gov  “Identity Theft – A Research Review” Identity Theft is a product of the information age with an estimated 9 million incidents a year. few persons are aware of the complexities of the many issues involved with this crime, which is really a large set of fraudulent activities ranging in size from minor swindles to major crimes using stolen identities. These fraudulent actions are perpetrated by a broad spectrum of offenders, from family members to shadowy, international criminal gangs.

This research review assesses what is known about identity theft and where research is needed.  What did the researchers find:•

• Although anyone is potentially vulnerable to identity theft (particularly theft of credit card-related information), individuals are more likely to be victimized by persons who have access to their identifying information, such as family members and persons with whom they share living quarters.

• Identity theft generally involves three stages: acquisition, use, and discovery. Evidence suggests that the longer it takes to discover the theft, the greater the loss incurred and the smaller the likelihood of successful prosecution. Older persons and those with less education are less likely to discover the identity theft quickly and to report it after discovery.
• • The access to personal information about potential victims and the anonymity the Internet offers would-be thieves are major facilitators of identity theft.
• Harm from identity theft crimes involves individuals and businesses. The extent of harm done to the victims and to society at large is unknown.

There are a considerable number of different crimes may include the use or abuse of another’s identity or identity-related factors. Such crimes include—

• Check fraud.
• Plastic card fraud (credit cards, check cards, debit cards, phone cards, etc.).
• Immigration fraud.
• Counterfeiting.
• Forgery.
• Terrorism using false or stolen identities.
• Theft of various kinds (pick pocketing, robbery, burglary, or mugging to obtain the victim’s personal information).
• Postal fraud.

Evidence also indicates that individuals are more likely to be victimized by those who have easy access to their personal information (see exhibit 1). These identity thieves may include family members and relatives (who know or have access to identifying information such as date of birth, mother’s maiden name, and Social Security number) or those with whom they live in close contact, such as fellow residents of college dormitories or military barracks.

Identity thieves have developed various techniques to exploit the opportunities of the information age; however, most of the ways that offenders steal identities are relatively unsophisticated—stealing wallets or purses, stealing mail, rummaging through residential trashcans or business dumpsters, obtaining credit reports by posing as someone authorized to do so such as a landlord or employer, bribing employees of businesses, agencies, or service organizations to obtain personal information, and many other nontechnological means.

Offenders use the identities to open new credit card, phone, or bank accounts, file for bankruptcy, take over insurance policies and make false claims, obtain auto loans or mortgages, file fraudulent tax returns, etc.

There are many data and measurement issues concerning identity theft. The crime is likely underreported, both by individuals and by agencies and businesses. Discovery may occur many months or even years after the fraud was committed.

A recent study found that identity theft crimes are committed more frequently offline than online, and that victims who accessed their accounts online discovered their victimization significantly faster than those who relied on paper bill or statement monitoring.[4] As a result, the researchers recommend that individuals use Internet account management to reduce risk. The conclusion that online account monitoring is safer is problematic, however, and requires further investigation. The risk posed by online activities may increase, as their volume increases and more offenders become skilled at capitalizing upon them.

Types of Identity Theft

Depending on the definition of identity theft, the most common type is credit card fraud of various kinds. Evidence indicates that the extent of credit card fraud on the Internet (and by telephone) has increased because of the opportunities provided by the Internet environment. Some researchers prefer not to include credit card fraud in true identity theft, since it may occur only once and may be discovered quickly by the credit card issuing company, often even before the individual cardholder knows that the fraud has occurred. Other types of identity theft, such as account takeover, are more involved and take longer to identify and investigate.
Seven broad types of identity theft—
• Exploiting weakness in specific technologies and information systems.
• Financial scams.
• As a motive for other crimes (e.g., bribing employees to provide passwords).
• Facilitating other crimes.
• Avoiding arrest.
• Repeat victimization (“classic” identity theft).
• Organized identity theft.

Stages of Identity Theft

The researchers categorized three stages of identity theft. A particular identity theft crime may include one or all of these stages.

1. Acquisition

2. Use

3. Discovery

Stage 1. Acquisition of the identity through theft, computer hacking, fraud, trickery, force, redirecting or intercepting mail, or even by legal means (e.g., purchasing identifying information on the Internet).

Stage 2. Use of the identity for financial gain (the most common motivation) or to avoid arrest or otherwise hide one’s identity from law enforcement or other authorities (such as bill collectors). Crimes in this stage may include:

• Account takeover.

• Opening new accounts.

• Extensive use of the victim’s debit or credit card.

• Sale of the identity information on the street or black market.

• Acquisition (“breeding”) of additional identity-related documents such as driver’s licenses, passports, visas, and health insurance cards.

• Filing fraudulent tax returns for large refunds.

• Insurance fraud.

Stealing rental cars.

Stage 3. Discovery of the theft—although many misuses of credit cards are discovered quickly, identity theft may take from 6 months to several years to discover. Evidence suggests that the longer it takes to discover the theft, the greater the loss incurred by the victim, who may or may not involve law enforcement. Considerably more research is needed in this area.

To download and read the complete article, click here

Lifelock’s Fraud Alert ruled illegal

From Wired. com

Judge Rules LifeLock’s Fraud Alert Service Illegal

• By Kim Zetter
• May 27, 2009  |
• 5:03 pm  |

In a decision that has privacy advocates and others scratching their heads, a federal judge has ruled that LifeLock has been breaking California law for years by placing fraud alerts on its customer’s credit profiles.

The decision is a blow to the burgeoning identify-theft protection industry, and means that companies that experience data breaches may no longer be able to offer victims free subscriptions to such services — a standard damage-control tactic in recent years. Consumers can still place fraud alerts by contacting one of the three U.S. credit reporting agencies directly.

Bo Holland, founder and CEO of Debix, a competitor of LifeLock, called the ruling “dramatic and unexpected.”

“It causes a real shift in the industry,” he told Threat Level.

The pre-trial partial summary judgment comes in a lawsuit filed last year against LifeLock by Experian, one of the nation’s three credit reporting bureaus. Experian claimed LifeLock is trying to “game the system” of fraud alerts to make a profit.

LifeLock, a controversial company that gained notoriety for publishing its CEO’s Social Security number in advertisements , charges $120 a year to consumers to place fraud alerts on their credit profiles, among other services. The company also offers a $1 million guarantee to reimburse the expenses of any customer who suffers losses from identity theft while subscribed to LifeLock.

Under the 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, fraud alerts are available for free to any consumer who believes he may have been a victim of identity theft, or is at imminent risk of it. With a fraud alert on a consumer’s credit profile, banks and other businesses are required to make a reasonable effort to check with a consumer before opening a new line of credit in his or her name.

For the rest of the story, click here.

Does ID Theft Protection work or is it a scam?

Image via Wikipedia

On May 28, 2009, the US Supreme Court ruled against LifeLock.  Here is a story from 2007 that provides the background to the ID Theft programs available.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-07-19/news/money-for-nothing/

Money for Nothing

Don’t fall victim to the identity-theft protection scam

By Ray Stern

Published on July 17, 2007 at 5:34pm

….If anyone in this state knows what to do about identity theft, it’s Bob Hartle.

Hartle lives with his wife, JoAnn, in the residence where he grew up in south Phoenix. The place is filled with the hides and heads of animals he and JoAnn hunted when they lived in Alaska. In 1994, the Hartles were living in Iowa when they found out that a thief had destroyed Bob Hartle’s good name (“Bob Hartle’s Identity Crisis,” April 24, 1997).

The incident spurred Hartle to become an expert on the subject, and he became personally responsible for the state’s first anti-identity-theft law, signed by Governor Fife Symington in 1996. Before then, no specific felony statute made it a crime to take someone’s data and use it wrongfully.

Hartle’s a retired Honeywell employee who now works as a security officer for a tech firm. He and JoAnn educate the public and help identity-theft victims in their spare time. Their Web site address is www.idfraud.org.

At seminars, Hartle says not to spend money on anti-identity-theft services. He says they are a waste of time. That’s also the message of Consumer Reports and other watchdogs that have analyzed the services.

The fact is, you can do most everything the services do for no cost.

If you become a victim — a possibility even if you buy the services — odds are the crime will cost you no money and take relatively little time to resolve.

To understand the criticism by Hartle and others, you first have to know what the identity-theft companies are selling: credit-report monitoring, fraud alerts, insurance, and help for victims.

Most of the companies offer several of the services at once.

All three major credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — offer credit-report monitoring in a way that could almost be called a protection racket.

The credit bureaus make money by collecting financial data on people and then selling it. They are the keepers of your credit report and credit score. When you apply for a loan, they’re the ones who tell credit card companies, mortgage firms, and car dealerships who you are and whether you’re likely to make timely payments.

The credit bureaus charge the lenders for that information. Then they charge you as much as $14.95 a month to monitor your credit report, simply shooting you an e-mail if someone opens a credit account in your name.

In other words, you pay the bureaus to let you know when they help someone commit fraud in your name.

You can choose not to buy the bureaus’ services, but you can’t choose to ignore the bureaus if their info on you is misused — not if you ever want to buy something on credit again.

Even if you pony up the monthly fee, there’s no protection from identity theft.

And if you get victimized, you still have work to do. The bureaus can’t interpret your credit report. Only you know which of your credit accounts are legitimate and which aren’t. If you think a thief has opened a line of credit in your name, you still have to contact the credit bureau — just as you would do if you learned about the crime because a collection agency called you.

Then there are companies like TrustedID, Debix and LifeLock, which take advantage of a three-year-old federal law that allows people to put fraud alerts on their credit reports. If a fraud alert is on your report, lenders are supposed to call you before issuing credit in your name.

Most of the companies offer some kind of insurance for customers, but the majority of identity theft victims would never need it. Financial losses are typically covered by the bank, merchant, or credit card company that gave credit to the wrong person.

So-called resolution services, which offer to help victims cut through the red tape after a theft occurs, seem like a good idea in complicated cases. But those services are outrageously expensive. One company, Kroll Fraud Solutions, charges between $1,000 and $2,000 to deal with a fairly simple new-account fraud case.

To read the remainder of this very interesting article, click here.

Investigations in the corporate world

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

From the Wall Street Journal and Royal DutchShell PLC.com

U.S. Cracks Down on Corporate Bribes

May 26th, 2009

by John Donovan.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

MAY 26, 2009

By DIONNE SEARCEY

The Justice Department is increasing its prosecutions of alleged acts of foreign bribery by U.S. corporations, forcing them to take costly steps to defend against scrutiny.

The crackdown under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA — a post-Watergate law largely dormant for decades — now extends across five continents and penetrates entire industries, including energy and medical devices. Among the companies currently under Justice Department review: Sun Microsystems Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, according to the companies’ disclosures.

At least 120 companies are under investigation, according to Mark Mendelsohn, a deputy chief in the Justice Department division overseeing the prosecutions, up from 100 at the end of last year.

The effort began in the wake of a series of business scandals earlier this decade, including the collapse of Enron, that stirred up a new corporate-reform movement.

Today, companies across the U.S. are working to figure out if they are at risk. In some instances, companies have called the Justice Department to come clean, in hopes of obtaining leniency.

The law prohibits U.S. companies from paying, or offering to pay, foreign-government officials or employees of state-owned companies to gain a business advantage. It covers nonmonetary gifts or offers in addition to cash payments, and is worded broadly enough that it’s spawning an army of consultants, some of whom once prosecuted bribery cases for the Justice Department, who offer to interpret the gray areas.

For years, taking business associates to lavish dinners and giving them expensive holiday gifts, and even outright cash, was expected and done in many countries. Among them, according to legal experts and corporations: Nigeria, South Korea and China, to name a few.

Several major multinational companies have been targets. German industrial conglomerateSiemens AG agreed in December to pay $800 million in U.S. fines to settle bribery investigations involving alleged payments to government officials around the world to win infrastructure contracts.

Justice Department officials alleged the corruption at Siemens reached the highest levels of management. In its indictment in federal court in the District of Columbia, it accused Siemens of spending more than $1 billion bribing government officials around the globe to win infrastructure contracts in recent years. Munich-based Siemens, which didn’t admit to the bribery allegations as part of the settlement, said it had inadequate controls and kept improper accounts. U.S. law applies to the German company because its stock trades in the U.S.

In February, energy companies Kellogg Brown & Root LLC and its former parent, Halliburton Co., agreed to pay a total of $579 million for U.S. charges involving bribery of officials in Nigeria. KBR pleaded guilty to charges involved in the case. As part of the settlement, the federal government agreed not to prosecute Halliburton.

The Justice Department probes can be particularly extensive during merger-and-acquisition activity. As a result, companies are becoming increasingly careful to scrutinize their own practices when a deal is brewing to ensure they don’t inherit a bribery problem. Just two weeks ago, Sun Microsystems — which is in the midst of a potential $7.4 billion purchase by Oracle Corp. — said in a regulatory filing that it might have violated bribery laws in an unnamed country.

For the complete article, click here