Morris-Cotterill: fraud and remote KYC
In R v Foster, published yesterday, an English court dealt with a case that will, for all the wrong reasons, result in hysterical hashtag-connected rants by "activists". And that's why it's worth making a point of noting it here: a woman, for whatever reason, took advantage of a change in the law to fraudulently obtain abortion drugs remotely.
She contacted a legitimate organisation, lied about her circumstances, received drugs and illegally aborted a fœtus that was well beyond the legal stage of development. Foster "obtained abortion drugs by a telephone consultation designed only for abortions in the first ten weeks. You were in fact 32-34 weeks pregnant and well beyond the point at which you could lawfully obtain an abortion." Examination of her mobile phone and internet search records showed that she not only knew exactly what her condition was but that she researched ways of inducing a miscarriage.
The full judgment is here: https://lnkd.in/gCZRyhTa
So, aside from the question of a fraud, why does this concern us in #financialcrimeriskandcompliance ? It's simple. The offence was facilitated by the widening of telemedicine services to include abortion advice and the provision of drugs to effect an abortion at home.
Abortions at home are far from uncommon: it is the remote access to services and the lack of any face to face contact which are the cause for concern.
Telemedicine has, it is widely accepted, been hugely beneficial (although those that have tried to use the services provided by the UK's National Health Service might have a different view).
The weak identification and verification performed remotely suffer the same problems for #FinTechs .
The Foster case will be reported as being about #abortion. It's actually about the weaknesses on-line systems where the customer lies.
Also, the Judge expressed serious concern about what he regarded as an inappropriate form of lobbying the Court by " those who favour wider access to abortions " especially as he pointed out in the first few sentences, the law is set by Parliament not by the Courts.
The case should be required reading for all in financial crime risk and compliance who should look beyond the narrow issue of the offence and to the much broader points it raises.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
About this section
Opinion pieces or "Op-Eds" are the home-made bombs of the publishing world. So long as they meet editorial standards, are not intentionally offensive with a view to causing hurt or insult and are relevant to our field of endeavour, we will look at submissions.
We like contentious, we like contrarian views. We don't like pretty much any -ism . We recognise that Opinion pieces are one person's view and are not balanced (if they are balanced and reach a reasoned conclusion, they are probably more suited to the Articles section). We do not like acronyms and buzzwords.
Op-Eds are the author's personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of World Money Laundering Report or its publishers.
To submit an Opinion piece, please complete the Contact form.
