Part 5: Investigating immigration identity fraud
5.1
In this Part, we set out our expectations for the investigation of immigration
identity fraud, and present our findings on how the Department:
- is organised to investigate immigration identity fraud;
- supports investigations through systems and procedures;
- provides training, supervision, and support for staff with investigative responsibilities;
- plans investigations into immigration identity fraud;
- works with external stakeholders in investigating immigration identity fraud; and
- evaluates its investigation of immigration identity fraud.
Our expectations
5.2
We expected the Department to have:
- targeted systems and procedures for conducting identity fraud investigations;
- all relevant staff appropriately trained, supervised, and supported in the investigation of identity fraud;
- investigations conducted in a timely manner;
- a high conversion rate from investigation to prosecution;
- effective operational relationships with all relevant external agencies with responsibilities for investigating identity fraud; and
- evaluations of the effectiveness of its investigation activities.
Arrangements for investigating immigration identity fraud
5.3
Investigations of immigration identity fraud detected within the skilled migrant
and UN-quota refugee entry categories are carried out by the Workforce Group’s
Fraud Branch. Its primary function is to identify offences, gather all relevant
evidence, and prepare court files for prosecution.
5.4
The Workforce Group’s Refugee Cancellation Team also carries out investigations
of identity fraud within the UN-quota refugee category. It is responsible for
investigating refugee status and deciding whether to cancel that status (including
refugee status conferred by the UNHCR) where it finds refugee status has been
granted based on fraudulent documentation.
Investigation support systems and procedures
Our findings
5.5
The Department has investigation procedures in place, but there are areas where
systems to support Fraud Branch investigations need to be improved. Currently,
the Fraud Branch has limited ability to accurately track or report on the timeliness
or effectiveness of its fraud investigations, particularly in terms of the conversion
rate from investigation to prosecution.
Investigation systems
5.6
The Border Security Group’s Information Technology (IT) Plan indicated that the
FITS system – a custom-built case management system for the Fraud Branch
– malfunctioned in March 2005, was corrupted, and lost four months of back-ups.
The IT Plan indicates that, since March 2005, the Fraud Branch has been running
in a high-risk IT environment, with potential for the loss of data, inadequate backups,
data corruption, inadvertent overwrites, or unauthorised changes.
5.7
Fraud Branch staff noted that better IT systems were needed to accurately track
and report fraud investigation work.
5.8
The Department has recognised that the AMS provides limited support for the
investigation process. The Fraud Branch is evaluating a proposal to use the AMS to
record its investigations, in place of the spreadsheets used now. This would bring
investigation management into the Department’s case management system and
allow consistent reporting.
5.9
Fraud investigation support systems that accurately track and report on the
timeliness and effectiveness of investigations (including the conversion from
investigation to prosecution) would provide assurance that appropriate and
timely action is being taken in relation to fraud investigations carried out by the
Department. It would also assist the Department in planning, prioritising, and
allocating fraud investigation staff to investigations. This could be considered as
part of the Fraud Branch’s proposal to use the AMS to record investigations, or as
part of future IT developments.
| Recommendation 11 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Labour address, as a priority, the limitations of the current IT systems to accurately track and report on the timeliness and effectiveness of fraud investigations. |
Investigation procedures
5.10
Fraud investigations proceed to prosecution where there is sufficient evidence.
Where there is insufficient evidence, fraud investigations can be referred to the
Revocation Team, and a final decision is made by the Minister of Immigration.
5.11
Fraud investigation procedures are outlined in the Immigration Service Fraud
Investigators’ Manual. This manual provides fraud investigation officers with a
framework for conducting investigations and prosecutions. The manual sets out
each phase of the investigation process.
5.12
Refugee cancellations are decided by either the Refugee Status Branch, or Refugee
Status Appeals Authority, depending on who gave the original approval for
refugee status. Cases are referred to the Fraud Branch for further investigation
where there is evidence referred or uncovered as part of refugee cancellation
investigations that is likely to result in criminal prosecution.
5.13
Refugee cancellation procedures are outlined in the Refugee Cancellation Team
Manual. This manual sets out the legal context for cancellation of refugee status,
and describes cancellation practice and procedures from the receipt of evidence
against a refugee to the decision to cancel or not to cancel refugee status.
Staff training, supervision, and support
Our findings
5.14
The Department has investigation staff who are supervised and supported, but
there is no training that is specific to their investigative roles.
Staff training
5.15
The current induction programmes and training for fraud investigation officers
and refugee status officers do not include instruction on investigation.
5.16
Fraud investigation officers complete an induction programme and immigration
officer warrant training. Refugee status officers also complete an induction
programme, and their training focuses on the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol.
5.17
The Fraud Branch actively recruits people with Police backgrounds, because of
their previous experience in investigation and preparation of files for prosecution.
However, some fraud investigation officers have needed to improve their skills in
the preparation of files for prosecution, and few officers with Police backgrounds
are likely to have had experience in investigating offences specific to immigration.
5.18
Refugee status officers in the Refugee Cancellation Team often have dual
responsibilities within other work areas in the Refugee Status Branch. Also, we
were told that there has been a high turnover of staff within the Refugee Status
Branch.
5.19
Fraud investigation officers and refugee status officers are specialised positions
that, regardless of people’s background or experience, require both introductory
and ongoing training specific to their investigative roles.
| Recommendation 12 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Labour address the lack of training available for fraud investigation officers and refugee status officers by providing a co-ordinated training and development programme specific to their roles. |
Investigation planning
Our findings
5.20
The Department has processes in place for prioritising investigations. However,
the priority initially assigned to fraud investigations does not necessarily reflect
the complexity or time required for investigations carried out by the Fraud Branch.
Also, the Fraud Branch has a significant backlog of fraud investigation files that
are either not yet allocated to an investigator or are allocated but still waiting to
be investigated.
Prioritising investigations
5.21
The Fraud Branch receives investigation referrals, and the Refugee Cancellation
Team receives prejudicial information on people with refugee status, from a range
of different sources within the Workforce Group and from external sources such
as the New Zealand Police.
5.22
The Fraud Branch prioritises investigations, depending on the nature and gravity
of the alleged offending and the likelihood of a successful criminal investigation.
The Fraud Branch has three categories of investigation case files, referred to as A
(high priority), B (medium priority) and C (low priority).
5.23
Fraud investigation officers in the Fraud Branch are responsible, on a weekly
rotational basis, for prioritising case referrals into the appropriate category for
allocation by Fraud Branch managers. Investigations can take varying times to
complete, depending on their complexity. Simple investigations can proceed
from fraud referral through to conviction (if prosecution is carried out) in less
than six months. More complex fraud investigations can sometimes take several years to complete. We were also told by Fraud Branch staff that it is difficult for
the Department to predict with accuracy how long individual cases may take,
because a wide range of variables can influence them (such as overseas agencies
or businesses not responding to information requests or verification).
5.24
Regular review of the priority categories initially assigned to fraud investigations
would provide additional assurance that all priority cases within categories A
and B are allocated for investigation by the Department. It would also assist the
Department to assess the complexity, time, and allocation of fraud investigation
staff required to undertake investigations.
| Recommendation 13 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Labour regularly review the priority category initially assigned to fraud investigations, to provide additional assurance that high priority cases are allocated for investigation. |
5.25
The Refugee Cancellation Team prioritises investigations depending on the nature
and quality of the prejudicial information or evidence received.
5.26
An initial risk assessment of the prejudicial information or evidence is carried
out by the Refugee Cancellation Team manager. This is used to categorise and
prioritise the case according to risk, and allocate the case to a refugee status
officer to investigate.
Investigation caseloads
5.27
As at February 2007, there was a fraud investigation caseload of 596 fraud case
files, all of which had been assigned a priority category. Of the 596 case files,
212 have been allocated to fraud investigation officers, and 384 have not been
allocated.
5.28
Of the 212 fraud case files allocated to fraud investigation officers, 130 have been
prioritised as Category A and 82 prioritised as Category B. Of the 384 fraud case
files not allocated, 185 have been prioritised as Category A, 197 prioritised as
Category B, and two prioritised as Category C.
5.29
The 384 fraud case files prioritised but not allocated represents a significant
backlog. The 212 cases that are allocated are spread among 11 investigation
officers in the Fraud Branch, with each officer working on 15-20 cases. This
workload for the 212 allocated cases indicates that about 20 additional
investigators would be needed to clear the backlog of the 384 unallocated cases.
5.30
The Fraud Branch conducted an internal audit in November 2006 to address
the backlog of fraud investigation cases. The audit cleared 95 Category B and C files, and, where there was a lack of information and evidence to proceed to
prosecution, or suspects or witnesses were outside New Zealand, files were
referred to other New Zealand Immigration branches for action, or formal
warnings were issued.
5.31
As at February 2007, there was a refugee cancellation investigation caseload of
300 cases, including 50 cases that related to UN-quota refugees. The Department
has indicated that there is no backlog of refugee cancellation cases, as cases are
allocated to refugee status officers on receipt.
5.32
The current fraud investigation backlog is a significant risk that needs to be
appropriately addressed by the Department, given that nearly half of the cases
have been assessed as Category A priority.
5.33
The difficulty with accurately assessing priority before starting investigative work
is also an issue. It means that cases in the backlog that have been given a low
priority could potentially be more serious.
5.34
The Department needs to regularly audit the fraud investigation backlog to
monitor and assess the additional staffing capacity needed to allocate priority
cases, and to ensure that all fraud cases within the backlog are accurately
prioritised and actively managed.
| Recommendation 14 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Labour regularly audit the fraud investigation backlog, to monitor and assess staffing requirements for priority cases, and to ensure that all backlog fraud cases are accurately prioritised and actively managed. |
Relationships with external stakeholders
Our findings
5.35
The Fraud Branch and the Refugee Cancellation Team have operational
relationships in place with relevant external agencies with responsibilities for
investigating and prosecuting against identity fraud.
5.36
Fraud Branch staff indicated that they have built good credibility and relationships
externally with the New Zealand Police, and with investigations units in other
government departments, including the New Zealand Customs Service and the
Ministry of Fisheries. Fraud Branch staff participate in training at the Royal New
Zealand Police College.
5.37
The Fraud Branch liaises regularly with the Serious Fraud Office, New Zealand
Security Intelligence Service, overseas embassies of key countries that New
Zealand liaises with on immigration issues (for example, Australia), and
consulates in New Zealand. Fraud Branch staff also regularly attend Combined
Law Agency Group regional meetings, and have meetings with bank and
telecommunications representatives to encourage information sharing.
5.38
The Refugee Cancellation Team liaises with a number of government departments
and overseas agencies.
Evaluation of investigation activities
Our findings
5.39
The Department has not formally evaluated the effectiveness of its identity
fraud investigations within the skilled migrant and UN-quota refugee categories.
There are no formal systems to accurately collect, assess, and report on such
information.
5.40
The Department informally reports on its investigation activities through team
newsletters. These outline the progress of specific investigations and cases, and
are circulated within the Workforce Group and to relevant external agencies.
5.41
A report commissioned by the Department on the Border Security Group’s
intelligence capacity in July 2005 noted that there was a lack of intelligence
material arising from cases under investigation and that this needs to be
addressed. The Department recognises that the systems supporting trends
analysis can be improved for tracking the volume and nature of incidents
detected, referred, and investigated, but has yet to take action to implement
improvements.
5.42
Regular formal evaluation of investigations would enable the Department to
measure the effectiveness of its investigation activities and provide information
and intelligence to identify risks and inform prevention and detection priorities
throughout the Department.
| Recommendation 15 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Labour regularly and formally evaluate its investigation activities, and gather and assess relevant information and intelligence from investigations. |