TTOG11210 | Civil Investigation of Fraud (Code 9): historical record: pre-authorisation review and action: suspicion of serious fraud

When a case is under review, it is not always possible to reach a conclusion on whether or not serious fraud has actually occurred; not all of the facts may be known. Where supposed facts are known they will often be untested. As part of the review process, we should be looking for the strength of evidence to demonstrate our suspicion of serious fraud.

You should keep an open mind at all times. Your judgement should be directed to the question of whether or not there is a reasonable suspicion of serious fraud to justify recommending that the case be registered under the CIF procedure.

There can be enormous variation in the weight of actual or potential evidence suggesting that serious fraud has occurred. It is absolutely essential when Investigators are considering what suspicion of serious fraud exists that they exercise discretion. (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

• (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

• (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

• (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

• (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

• (This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

This judgement can only be subjective (and provisional). Some review cases will have been proceeding from the outset in the expectation that serious fraud may have occurred. Others will not. However in all cases it is necessary to consider when the review is concluding whether or not a reasonable suspicion of serious fraud exists.