Background Checks–Mistakes

  Business Week recently published an article entitled “The Trouble with Background Checks.”  Click for Story Here

The article points out that the “$4 billion business of background screening is booming.” Professional investigators know that “background checks” includes many things, and some checks may be very thorough or be shallow and produce mistakes. Many companies are looking for mass produced, inexpensive “background checks” to decide hiring employees. The prospective employee must consent to a background check of unknown origin and unknown detail.

Business Week points out that background screening companies profits have soared over 40% last year. The trouble with many background checks is making sure the information is correct, accurate and up to date. In addition, it is very nice to know the competency of the employees actually doing the background check. These type of background checks are generally just a search of computer data bases of various kinds. Some “screeners” will interview references. But will some reference dislike the applicant and tell vicious tales about the person? Who knows? Will the “background screener,” who is likely underpaid, be able to discern from the conversation the truthfulness of the reference’s statement?

I have been contacted by some government contracted background investigators who were checking on applicants for government jobs. i was not impressed with the method, nature or thoroughness of the interview. I could have told the investigator that the applicant was personally known to me to be the devil, and I do not think that would have slowed down the questioner.

If you are having background checks done by one of the larger companies, make sure you know what you are getting in return for you $24.95, $54.95 or whatever the amount you pay for the background check.

Bill Lowrance
President PIAVA

Hewlett-Packard Pretextors Fined

  From Wired:  A key figure who pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection to the Hewlett-Packard spying scandal was ordered Wednesday to pay hefty fines and to refrain from selling personal phone records obtain fraudulently via pretexting.

A Florida judge ordered Bryan Wagner to pay $428,000 in ill-gotten gains and his co-owner of Eye in the Sky Investigation, Cassandra Selvage, to give up $110,762, according to a default order in a civil suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The two did not defend themselves in court, an FTC spokeswoman said.  Click Here for Wired Blog Story  See Also PC World Article

Click Here FTC Press Release

“According to the FTC complaint, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that a customer’s phone records may only be disclosed “upon affirmative written request by the customer.” But the agency alleged that since at least 2005 Action Research Group, Inc., and its principals, Joseph and Matthew DePantes, sold confidential customer phone records, including lists of calls made and the dates, times, and duration of the calls, to third parties, without the knowledge or consent of the customers. To get the records, these defendants relied upon the other defendants, Eye in the Sky Investigations, Inc., Cassandra Selvage and Bryan Wagner, who obtained them from phone companies through “pretexting” – using “false pretenses, fraudulent statements, fraudulent or stolen documents or other misrepresentations, including posing as an account holder or as an employee” of a phone company. Selling the records constitutes an invasion of privacy that could endanger the health and safety of consumers, the agency alleged.

The DePantes and ARG agreed to settle the FTC charges. Defendants ESI, Cassandra Selvage, and Bryan Wagner are subject to default judgments entered by the court.

The settlement and default judgments permanently bar the defendants from obtaining, marketing or selling customer phone records or consumers’ personal information derived from those records. They also bar the defendants from pretexting or using others to pretext to obtain consumers’ information. The settlement order entered a judgment in the amount of $67,000 against the DePantes and ARG, the estimated amount of ill-gotten gains the defendants earned from their illegal scheme; the judgment was suspended upon a payment of $3,000 based on the defendants’ inability to pay. In the default judgments, the court ordered Wagner to give up $428,085 in ill-gotten gains and ESI and Selvage to give up $110,762.”

Do Not Hire A Criminal

   The NY Times has a story today about running background investigations or checks on job applicants especially at higher levels.  You do not want to hire a CEO or CFO of a company if the person was convicted of embezzlement, do you?  The story gives examples of accountants or other financially responsible employees stealing money and company assets.

Better read this before hiring a new employee.

Click Here NY Times

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA

Information Insights Inc. McLean, VA

Pellicano Conviction–Future of Private Investigators

  Newsweek has a story about the recent conviction of California private investigator Anthony Pellicano.  Pellicano was convicted in federal court recently on racketeering and wire tap charges. Click Here for LA Times Story 

What is the future of the private investigation industry? How will the Pellicano conviction place restrictions on private investigators? Click Here Newsweek Story

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA

Pretexting Couple Plead Guilty

    In December 2007 we wrote about the indictment and arrest of several private investigators and personal information researchers pretexting the IRS, medical offices, Social Security Administration and others for personal information.  Click Here to Read 

This month, May 2008, the two main pretexting individuals, Emilio Torrella, 36, and Brandy Torrella, 27, whose company BNT Investigations in Belfair, WA, sold the data for $30 to $300 a record to private investigators who used their services.  The Torrellas obtained the information through false representations.  This month the couple pled guilty.

The Torellas, who owned BNT Investigations in Belfair, sold the data for $30 to $300 a record to private investigators who used their services.

The couple face a mandatory minimum sentence of two years for aggravated identity theft, plus additional time for wire fraud and conspiracy.

The year-long investigation, dubbed “Operation Dialing for Dollars,” led to the couple’s indictment in December 2007, along with the indictment of seven private investigators and another Belfair man, BNT Investigations employee Steven Berwick. Cases against those eight are set for trial in September.  Read full news article Click Here Seattle PI. See Torrella Plea Agreement

BIll Lowrance

President PIAVA

 

Need Those Cell Phone Text Messages

  Today’s “Tech Tips for Investigators” comes from PIAVA member Ed Leary.  Ed has an investigative firm in Fairfax, VA, www.erleary.com.  In a case recently, he needed to access data on his client’s cell phone.  How did he do it?  See his tip below.

In a couple of recent cases, I have found myself needing to acquire data from a client’s cell phone. I found data recovery is feasible from some but not all phones and to different degrees depending on a number of factors.

The acquisition or recovery of data, e.g. text messages stored on a cell phone, can in some instances prove to be of evidentiary value in an investigation. One of the tools which can be used for that purpose is computer forensic software.

The feasibility of data acquisition and recovery is impacted by a number of factors, including the design, construction, programming, and condition of the device on which data may be stored; the tool(s) used to acquire the data; and the skill of the forensic examiner. The degree to which data may be acquired/recovered varies by device.

The CParaben Corporation website contains a listing of devices which may be susceptible to data acquisition/recovery using forensic software designed for that purpose. Bottom Line: For an explanation of the capabilities of data acquisition/recovery software and, importantly, a listing of various cell phone devices with which it may be compatible,

visit: Paraben-Forensics.

Thanks Ed for the great information.  You can contact Ed through his web site at www.erleary.com or 703-946-6791, 866-570-0641.

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA

Information Insights Inc., McLean, VA

 

Virginia Courts Digitally Scanning Court Records

  Virginia Clerks of the Courts are scanning court records allowing electronic access to court documents normally seen only in the paper file in the clerk’s office.   Lawyers have expressed concern about their client’s personal information in the court records will be seen by anyone on the Internet. 

Read the whole story here: Virginia Lawyers Weekly

Bill Lowrance

President Piava

Information Insights Inc.

 

Tax Information On The Web In Italy

A recent read of BBC News reveals that the Italian outgoing government published every Italian citizens declared earnings and tax contributions.  Well, as you might guess there was a public “negative” response and the information was taken down after being on the tax authority’s web site for 24 hours.

Probably the most sacred information to Americans is tax return information.  It is a grievance felony to release tax return information without proper authority.  Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6103 provides that all tax return information is confidential, private and may not be released or disclosed without specific statutory authority.  The IRS cannot turn over tax return information to anyone, government or private sector, without following specific procedures and statutory provisions.

There are certain exceptions and situations allowing the IRS to release tax return information.

However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of.

IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.  It should be noted that the IRS and almost all states have signed memorandum of agreements relating to specific enforcement programs.

IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.

IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.

IRC 6103(l)(1) provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.

The IRS may therefore share information with SSA about social security and Medicare tax liability if necessary to establish the taxpayer’s liability.   This provision does not allow the IRS to disclose your tax information to SSA for any other reason.   SSA employees who receive this information are bound by the same confidentiality rules as IRS employees.   Therefore, they generally cannot disclose the information to state social security administrators, state officials or other Federal agencies.

IRC 6103(e)(6) and (c) provide for disclosures to powers of attorney and other designees.  If you are notified of an audit by the IRS, you may want to have someone other than the authorized officer of your entity represent you or participate in the meeting.   You may bring any individual you wish into the discussion, in person or by telephone.   You may give oral consent to speak with a third party if necessary to resolve a Federal tax matter.   However, oral consent does not substitute for a power of attorney or a legal designation, and the discussion is limited to the issue for which the consent is given.   

Well, so much for the highly technical aspects of the Internal Revenue Code.  Have you read it?

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA

Information Insights Inc., McLean, VA

IRS FAQ Stimulus Payments-All You Want To Know About Taxes

 Our friends at the IRS have published FAQs for all you want or need to know about stimulus payments: Click Here for FAQs.  Want more information Click Here for more FAQs.

You can also go to the Econ Stimulus Payment Center at Click Here for Econ Stimulus Center 

I hope some of you received the stimulus payment and put the extra “surprise” money to good use.

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA

Information Insights Inc., McLean, VA

Surveillance Cameras-DC 5000 NYC 3000 Chicago 6000

 Smile because soon everywhere you travel, even through airports, you will be under surveillance.  Washington, DC, announced today implementation, Read Surveillance Camera Story, of an around the clock monitered camera surveillance system (up to 5000 cameras).  The camera feed will go to the central office of the DC Homeland Security to be monitored by people.  Of course, no one knows who will be monitoring, when, how or what.  Will some errant monitor peek into your apartment window?  There are serious concerns by some DC Council members about lack of planning, security and privacy.

The story points out that NYC and Chicago have 3000 and 6000 cameras, respectively, out there monitoring activity.  Right now most security cameras are pointed to public areas in various parts of the cities.  Will cameras soon be placed in residential neighborhoods?  Personally, I do not want one on my street.

Bill Lowrance

President PIAVA