Ofcom/PhonePayPlus:Haven for Premium Rate fraud

[El Gringo]

http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...SblOiQ0fvzU60Q
£5m ITV penalty 'not end of matter'
The Press Association
13/5/2008

ITV bosses "may well" face a police investigation into a series of premium rate phone-in scandals, broadcast watchdog Ofcom has indicated.

Chief executive officer Ed Richards told MPs it was for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to decide if criminal action was appropriate.
[...........]
"We do not want to get ourselves in a position of recommending or suggesting something is or is not a criminal offence. It's dangerous territory for a regulator," he said.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/80...e-in-scandals/
14-May-08
............
Richards said that although the Serious Fraud Office had not yet asked Ofcom to hand over any evidence relating to the ITV phone-in scandal, it would be "only happy" to cooperate. But he dismissed suggestions that it was the regulator's responsibility to alert police to any wrongdoing.
.................

so Ofcom/PhonePayPLus are above the criminal law concerning the 'reporting of crime'
is that the reason Mike Tully (PhonePayPLus) had apparently remained silent throughout the four year C4/Eckoh 'You Say We Pay' phone-in scandal?

[Sharyn]

Quote: 'But he dismissed suggestions that it was the regulator's responsibility to alert police to any wrongdoing.'

Funny how we are led to believe that PP+ has to 'invite' the Police to investigate a case.

[Worldlife]

If it is not already in place, perhaps the time has come to insert in the "Constitution" of regulatory bodies a requirement that they must inform the police of any complaint or investigation where there may be a suspicion of criminal activity.

[Hamlet]

If it is not already in place, perhaps the time has come to insert in the "Constitution" of regulatory bodies a requirement that they must inform the police of any complaint or investigation where there may be a suspicion of criminal activity.

Originally Posted by Worldlife

A German story

We have such a requirement in German law...

(4) Die Bundesnetzagentur teilt Tatsachen, die den Verdacht einer Straftat oder einer Ordnungswidrigkeit begründen, der Staatsanwaltschaft oder der Verwaltungsbehörde mit.
(The BnetzA (regulator) communicates facts, which justify the suspicion of a criminal offence or an irregularity, to the public prosecutor's office or the administrative authority)

This is a clear legal frame. There is no "can communicate" or "may communicate" - it's crystal clear...

Buuuuuuuut:

We have sent all our information to the German regulator for years... Video documentation of auto diallers, background investigation, and so on...
... did they contact the police? No.
They got proof for the presence of auto diallers, but... it was thrown away. Or filed. Whatever.

I got mad about it. I remember myself with the phone in the hand talking to a man from the regulator and he told me "No, we didn't contact the police." I asked: WHY NOT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE??? He said "Our lawyers didn't decide to do so". I had to sit down and breaaaaaaathe in. I said "you did break the law!" - he couldn't understand. It was the last time I talked to them by phone...

They HAD to contact the police even if there was only a SUSPICION. But they didn't. horse whip, horse whip!

One of my investigations found its way to the police just because the crooks tried to trick a police officer and he told it to another police officer - who was a good friend of us

What you can see: Germany is a fraudsters' haven too

What you can say:
There must be a clear instruction to the regulator that they MUST inform the police
You are absolutely right!

[El Gringo]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...com#g205797.q0
Monday, 19 May 2008

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ask Ofcom to refer its case files on recent cases of television broadcaster misconduct in the use of premium rate telephone services in viewer competitions and voting to the Serious Fraud Office.


Andy Burnham (Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Leigh, Labour) | Hansard source

This is a matter for Ofcom, and the hon. Gentleman might like to raise the issue with them direct.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...SblOiQ0fvzU60Q
13/5/2008

Chief executive officer Ed Richards told MPs it was for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to decide if criminal action was appropriate.
[...........]
"We do not want to get ourselves in a position of recommending or suggesting something is or is not a criminal offence. It's dangerous territory for a regulator," he said.

'theyworkforyou'

[El Gringo]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...com#g205855.r0
Thursday, 22 May 2008

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police plan to investigate the recent cases of television broadcaster misconduct in the use of premium rate telephone services in viewer competitions and voting; and if she will make a statement.


Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour) | Hansard source

Matters of misconduct by broadcasters is a matter for the Office of Communications (OFCOM). It is an operational matter for the police to determine whether an investigation should be conducted in response to any allegation of a criminal offence.

OK:
So
the victims of Premium Rate Fraud are not supposed to report allegations to the police. They are told to report all allegations to the regulators(Ofcom/PhonePayPlus).
but
The Regulators claim it's not their responsibility to refer cases of fraud to the police.
Government 'Better Regulation' = Fraud Protection

Tony's police siren 'blaaBLAAblaaBLAAblaaBLAA'