From the BBC website:

" On the Fiddle
Mon 16 Jan, 8:30 pm - 9:00 pm 30mins

Claiming to Be Disabled

Pretending you are disabled in order to get extra social security benefits is serious fraud. Undercover Benefit Fraud Investigators follow a tip off that someone who claims he cannot walk without crutches is working as a builder. The video evidence proves he is far from disabled and has stolen £26,000 worth of benefits. A shocking programme revealing those that steal from the most needy. "

Sounds like a nice balanced piece of journalism....

..."A shocking programme revealing those that steal from the most needy."......

Wasn't this last shown under the title of "General Election"........

Be fair, it doesn't say that everybody is claiming fraudulently any more than programmes, looking at other criminal activities, imply that everybody is doing it.

My own view is that people who deliberately claim fraudulently should be jumped on. If they weren't doing it, the same pot of money could provide higher benefits for the genuine claimant.

"A shocking programme revealing those who steal from the most needy."

That would be capitalism then!

Why is it that only people accused of benefit fraud who are accused of stealing from the most needy?

People who are less than honest and who are economical with the truth fiddle taxes every day. As far as I know they have exactly the same effect on treasury/public funds as benefit fraudsters. Why are they not accused of stealing from the most needy?

That's why it's not exactly fair Gareth. The effect of singling out benefit fraud is that all those people who are not confident about coping or are not articulate enough become frightened to claim for fear of being labelled a fraudster if they make a mistake.

Of course it wouldn't be so bad if benefit authorities could be trusted to make reasonable decisions but they are not very good at it. They make default decisions and seem to work in a culture where all applicants are pre-judged as not entitled or lying - unless they can prove differently.

Phew - feel better after saying all that.

And I do too for hearing it - thank you.

The DWP must be over the moon at the trendy left wing BBC jumping on a handy recent bandwagon to deflect media attention away from Tax Credit overpayments (unless someone mixes the two and accuses millions of tax credit overpayees of being fraudsters).

What about the millions of underpaid benefits? What about the lack of training in benefit take-up given to health workers, teachers and scoial workers? What about the numbers of claimants who will ask to have their DLA stopped after watching this kind of programme (or watching the big brother style ads on ITV), convinced either that being snooped on is compulsory for those claiming benefits or believing that they must be committing fraud themselves?

'Tax evasion' (it's not fraud, it's a game honest) is an honourable practice upheld by countless well-paid politicians and BBC executives.

...........whats the problem?

Surely it'll show the fraud officers up for incompetent fools?

Or will they be played by actors?

It's narrated by Faye Ripley.

Lets boycott her......

think it may be a series rather than a one-off programme ... next week's (23 January) blurb is -

'Documentary series following the work of benefit fraud investigators. Undercover fraud investigators suspect a gang of school cleaners of working under false identities whilst claiming benefit. To find out who they really are, the investigators start watching their every move and trying to trail them home. When it emerges that the cleaning supervisor ... and her husband ... have been deliberately recruiting benefit claimants to work illegally, the fraud charges escalate. They confess that debts have made them desperate. Narrated by Faye Ripley.'

What an interesting coincidence, don't you think, that just ahead of the launch of a new Green Paper reforming the incapacity benefit system (and which is predicted to be extremely controversial amongst Labour MPs), we have a programme being broadcast that demonstrates what a scrounging bunch of fraudsters those claiming benefits due to sickness and disability are?

There have been programmes about tax fiddling as well and I take the same view there, if it's deliberate, jump on them.

You're not seriously trying to maintain a stance that the Government approach to "benefit fraud" and to what is quaintly referred to as "tax avoidance" are in anyway comparable, are you Gareth?

I certainly can't remember any program called "Tipping the wink" which follows IR/SFO investigators as they fearlessly track down grim men in grey suits across the City of London who are diverting funds into off-shore bank accounts, whilst similtaneously awarding themselves large bonuses.....

And anyway, my point was about the coincidence of the timing of these events - again, John Hutton, for example, is headline news with his speech on incapacity today - on the very same day that a programme will be broadcast that is very unlikely to be making points such as "The vast majority of claimants are totally honest", or that the problem of official error is actually costing more than fraud these days, or that stigmatisation of certain social groups runs counter to other Government departments findings e.g. the Social Exclusion Unit, as to actually how best to reach out and help excluded people improve their circumstances.

But that wouldn't make exciting telly would it.....

I seem to remember there was a similar programme about 10 years ago, the episode I clearly remember was where inspectors went around checking whether lone parents had partners or not. What struck me was how they never actually made a decision to stop benefit they just told them they had to withdraw their claims which, of course, most of them did.

I think there was another one about the CSA. I didn't see it but vaguely remember the trailer showing some CSA manager louchely claiming that tey will catch all absent parents and they will never escape or somesuch.

Still, none of that happens any more cos we're all on the same side now aren't we?

The point Paul makes is a telling one. I remember one of the first things this government did when it came to power in 1997 was to abolish lone parent benefit. There was a lot of stigmatisation of lone parents doing the rounds back then as well. Talk about soft targets.

I suppose I'm saying what my stance is. I don't go along with a conspiracy theory of timing, the programming schedules are set a long time ahead and production takes a long time as well.

There is a danger that some people take the view that unfairnesses in the benefit system justify going further than taking advantage of loopholes and administrative flaws. If you start polarising into 'benefits fraud good - tax fraud bad' (or vice versa) then you fall into a trap that would not do clients any good.

TV, like almost all the media, is about tabloidisation, don't expect responsible presentation of any issues in the main, but don't assume that a programme is part of a cunning plan to destroy the welfare state.

I think everyone has been a bit unfair to Gareth on this one.

I've always thought public perception is that tax avoidance is ok as its your money the government are taking from you. Benefit fraud is bad as its money for nothing.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just reflecting the opinions of others from many (too many) years.....

The fact is of course that Gareth is right, John, and that any kind of fraud is wrong, and that any kind of demonstration of understanding of benefits fraud or sympathy to its perpetrators is tantamount to approval. Which no-one contributing to this site would do.

But the fact remains that even though I know it's wrong if a client in receipt of long term incapacity benefit manages to get a few extra quid doing something on the side I can understand that those few extra quid make a tangible difference. If eligible I would want to be looking at getting them DLA instead (and of course I would no longer advise them whilst any fraud was going on and undeclared - although in actual fact I haven't come across a 'live' fraud case like that for years - they just don't seem to come and see us do they?).

But the reason I'm understanding is I'm in sympathy with the client group. If I think of people being paid £100k pa fiddling tax I'm not in sympathy with the client group, I'm jealous.

"...........whats the problem?

Surely it'll show the fraud officers up for incompetent fools?"

Didnt see the programme myself - were they shown as incompetent fools ???

Not really, the prog makers tried to ramp up the excitement somewhat, in the way of undercover cop docs, with rising music, jerky cameras and investigators hurriedly swapping calls to say the suspect had jumped on top of his van....to say they strung out the "action" a little would be on the kind side of criticism really.

If anything, it hinted at the fact that investigations came across as quite boring, sitting watching people from afar who may or may not be swinging the lead....whereas interviews and arrests got peoples blood up somewhat. Again, unsurprisingly, I suppose.

Well I thought it was funny how one investigator was struggling to see which house the builder was taking his gear in. His response was to keep telling his colleague over the radio that he couldn't see him over and over. Why not get out of the car? Go for a walk? Grab a paper and a look see on the way past.

The programme was balancing the fraudsters against a 'genuine' disabled boy whos widowed mother was struggling to fill in forms for CA after advice from the Job Centre. The end line as I remember was that she was not entitled.......... no underlying entitlement then?

There was also the free Car Tax for carers too.

It would be nice if the BBC put out some numbers for people to get advice on after being fed bad information by their TV show.

Finally, nice camera work on showing the major getting into his BMW in the background via a long through shot between two cars as a man with crutches and calipers struggling into his motor. Staged or just lucky?

But what did you actually think of the programme then?

FWIW, i have no qualms whatsoever about the fact of the 2 featured fraudsters getting nicked as they were quite clearly taking the proverbial....however, the presentation of the soft-spoken-DLA-form-filler was quite seriously getting my goat up by the end of the prog, the message about the caring sharing and advice giving DLAU was, um, creative to say the least (advising the mother with the autistic son to claim CA when she was already getting widows benefits!!! WTF?), and I felt that it did imply a message that i thought might be there, i.e. the existence of the deserving and undeserving poor.

As nevip notes above, we had lone parent stigmatisation a few years back, and next weeks prog looks at the thorny issue of cohabitation...much as i criticise, i'm almost setting the video in a car-crash-rubber-necking-style-frenzy.

Tue 17-Jan-06 08:48 AM by Paul Treloar

I thought that the problem with the programme was that it failed to put the cases in context ie the quite low level of fraud in the social security system. The government's own research says its less than 0.5% in incapacity benefit. Without that it gives the impression that fraud is endemic. See the link below from the Telegraph which contains an interview with the producer and thats clearly the view he takes.

I take the point about long lead times for programmes but schedules can be changed. Again, the Telegraph makes the connection between John Hutton's speech and the programme's content and I wonder if they made that connection themselves or whether it was from a press release, either from the Government or the BBC?

Link has been cut and pasted a couple of times. I think its all there but there is a possiblity you might need to cut and paste.

For link, click here

Before we all go off knashing and wailing and smiting etc, let's apply a little reality ......

The major problem with subjects such as these is that when they get taken up by the media they lose all sense of perspective.
Whilst cases such as the one highlighted are good television, let's face it they are hardly your average run of the mill benefit fraud case are they? Every district gets it's odd high profile case from time to time, but these tend to be the exception to the rule, and certainly not evidence of wholesale fraud within the system.
Cases like this represent a very small percentage of the total number of claimants, and at the end of the day only end up tarring everyone with the same brush............

I think thats the point. My view is that the programme gives the impression that fraud is endemic when it isn't.

Yes, it would have been nice if they looked into whether the lone parent was entitled to the Carer's Premium.

I agree with the point Gareth makes about a conspiracy theory of timing. However, I don't think it works like that.

Whenever a government wants to push through controversial legislation (which it will habve been planning for quite a while) then it institutues a campaign to soften up public opinion.

It will do this in many ways, 'unofficial' leaks to the press, getting backbenchers to lay down questions in The House, official press releases, etc.

This inevitably gets the media involved and due to the tabloid nature of much of our journalism (tv as well as the press) then myths, misunderstandings and falsehoods abound.

Have we forgotten already, many of the myths and lies surrounding asylum seekers, such as "they get given nice houses and cars, don't they"?

Lets get one thing clear - anyone who commits fraud about receiving pulic money or about an obligation for payng it - does want stamping on. The point I was making earlier is that beneifit claimants are singled out for criticism whilst others get ignored.

It's not hard to see why, the groups of people who claim benefit generally have the smallest political clout. The politicians therefore have an easy target. Benefit claimants can be criticised in the clear knowledge that the groups with political clout will not identify with benefit claimants and be either indifferent or even supportive of the government.

Its easy to blame the media for being hysterical but it is hysteria that is being fed by government. The TV programme and tabloids are a predictable consequence.

The hysteria is fed by the government constantly spouting out half truths. There was a good example with John Hutton yesterday. He said (with a straight face) that taking action to get Incapacity claimants back into work was justified by changing the "something for nothing culture" to a "something for something" culture.

Someone should give Mr Hutton a lesson in basic history. Incapacity always was A SMETHING FOR SOMETHING BENEFIT. The something that the claimant gives is called National Insurance. The benefit was set up so that people who cannot work can get compensation which they have a right to by virtue of their contributions into the national insurace system.

Despite this, we have a government minister accusing IB recipients of getting something for nothing. Once apon a time his party would have been proud of a social insurance system, now they cannot wait to rubbish it.

It enough to make you weep.

Frank Field on the CSA yesterday:

'Field highlights a string of problems, including the £3bn in unpaid maintenance, which is growing by £30m a month.

He says the agency runs three systems for collecting child support, using a mix of two IT systems and two sets of scheme rules.

The amount of money paid out each year in maladministration is £3m and growing, he adds.

And over a third of a million people, mainly mothers, are waiting for a maintenance assessment.'

It would be a lot easier to stomach a broadcast like this if I could accept that the DWP was always acting fairly and impartially itself.. the conduct of PCAs, Hab Res/RTR.. ...you know how long the list is. Would anyone ever make a program about behaviour of the DWP which is outside of the law? Would anyone watch it ( except the likes of us).

Leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth.

Still, it'll give us all something to talk about on Tuesday mornings for the next few weeks. I like the thought of us all yelling: 'CARER'S PREMIUM! CARERS PREMIUM!' at the telly in sinc. last night.

What a PR stunt for the DWP!!!

How hard must the programme makers have searched to find that lady with the CA claim who had found them so so helpful? Frankly I would have found the kindly man helping complete the DLA forms more believable if I'd seen him in a Little Britain sketch. I stand to be corrected as I've never phoned the DBU for help to complete a DLA form myself, but I can't imagine for a minute that DWP management would be happy for their staff to spend an hour and three quarters on each claim form!

Must admit I was waiting for the interview with the Welfare Rights spokesperson, to show that the BBC hadn't forgotten its commitment to balanced journalism.

Yeah but Robbo don't the BEL do all the benefits advice in the country now? So hadn't they done that?

(segue to LSC cutting SSP contracts - top slice first who's next??)

Sara I hate to say anything in favour of the DWP, but to support my commitment to evenly balanced journalism, the DWP have on my experience done home visits for DLA forms, as well as providing pretty good help over the phone too.

we live in interesting times, andrew. i've currently had a very positive experience of a fraud investigator going out of her way to try to help me get to the bottom of a maladministration (attendance allowance) case. i know... : )

it's difficult not to be cynical about the timing - just before the publication of the green paper - when we know the beeb is hyper-sensitive at times - you know... pulling scheduled disaster movies or episodes of 'casualty' when there has been a rail-crash, or taking songs/bands off the playlist at politically sensitive times - like 'Bomb the Bass' in Gulf War 1, that kind of thing.

i not sure Aunty has fully recovered from its mauling by 'Antique Roadshow' fans when Nelson Mandela was freed, let alone all the fall-out from the Gilligan affair. My head is so completely exploded by the Galloway on Big Brother concept, i can no longer worry about the sub-script on all these property programmes - first - MDF your home- support B&Q, then, the 'tart up your street and spot the anti-social neighbour neighbour who's lowering your property value' project, and now, invest in bulgaria and make a killing...
i did spot that Brown briefed on civil service job cuts on Friday, reported faithfully by the Beeb, no mention of the PCS strike in the DWP - at least not in the report i heard, but have otherwise decided that the young ones (Thatcher's children - like my kid) have probably developed a natural immunity to psychological manipulation, from all that over-exposure to advertising, and have evolved sub-conscious filtering as a survival trait. for the rest, the laws of thermo-dynamics trump spin every time, be it in ever so unforeseen ways...might as well sit back and enjoy 'In the thick of it' on grounds that there is more truth to be found in fiction than fact, arts council or no arts council.

can't help wondering why, if the welfare reform policy is truly enlightened, it's reasoning doesn't ring true and clear as a bell?
i don't doubt that there's a case for modernisation, in the true sense of the word, but if it daren't be told, how can it be honestly sold?
spin straw into gold?
chronic illness into 'benefit dependency'? Rumpelstiltskin, Mr. Hutton ain't - and if the moral of 'On the Fiddle' is nobody should expect the Dweep to believe in fairy stories, be sure it cuts both ways.

still, if there are any theatre of the absurd afficionados out there in meat world, i recommend the Minister's speech, where you can find revisionist gems such as -

"support that was originally envisaged for people with industrial injuries after long years of manual labour now often goes to people who have quit their office work or profession due to mental health problems."

and

"The provisions in Beveridge’s plan for unemployment benefit were clear. The task of the unemployed person was to keep themselves “fit for service”.

not to mention staggering logic such as -

"The clear link between benefit dependency and poverty is shown by the simple fact that half of the most severe pockets of deprivation in the country are contained within the hundred parliamentary constituencies with the highest numbers of incapacity benefit claimants."

and the absolute side-splitter -

"Incapacity benefit remains one of the greatest barriers to social justice in Britain today."

jj

jj your timing of posting never ceases to raise concerns in me for your health.

The Young Ones, as I remember, were officially told off by the BBC (or something) for having a single frame of Norris McWhirter's head pasted on to a naked female model's body in their programme. I'm sure a lot of people watched and learned.

It wouldn't surprise me if they're not putting something in our tea too. There must be something in Mr Hutton's. I can see his point though - it would be a process not an accident so no IIDB?

On a similar depressing note there's a film doing the rounds at the moment called "the corporation" i think (i only saw it sunday and i've forgotten it's name already) which looks at the all powerful multi-national companies and their scary ability to not just dominate countries economic policies? but social policies (assuming they have any social policies worthy of the name) too.

you are kind, andrew. : )
i must have one or two things in common with Mrs. Thatcher, i know it's worrying.

i suppose the accident/process dilemma could be resolved if industrial injuries law were modernised to conform to quantum theory, but it's probably already difficult enough? and besides...

jj

... why not get rid of IIDB at the same time!! I'm sure they will.

andrew! you go too far! i'll admit to 3 - gender, possession of handbags, and a tendency towards the music of the cheeldren of the night (sleep-deprived insanity), but i am NOT as old as Mrs. T, nor senile.

i can do modern, i can even do new -age - i have a pack of feminist tarot-cards to prove it! hats off to gordon the devious - dependency culture in employers as leverage - supersede the benefits system with progressive employment practices, education through work to empower abused women to gain independence...oh-oh...it's breaking up, trade union members discounts...no...i've lost it...

jj

I like the sound of that game. Name three things one has in common with:

1. Gordon Brown
2. A benefit fraud invesigator
3. Sir William Beveridge

The latter said, incidentally:

"Social insurance fully developed may provide income security: it is an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of the five giants on the road of reconstruction, and in some ways the easiest to attack. the others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness."

In other words it was NOT an attack on idleness.

(Quote from Denning's foreword to the first edition of Neligan's digest of cases, by the way)

Which _is_ on the DWP website!

better late than never, i hope, andrew : )

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/neligans/pdf/editor.pdf

i suppose it's important to understand how the word 'Idleness' was being used. Even more important to remember that the welfare state was not born, fully formed, from the pen of Sir William Beveridge, or the determination of the then labour government alone. The 'attack on the Five Giants' was a _representation_ en route to legislation of some constitutional significance, for which majority concensus had not yet been forged.

Lord Denning's description of the real difference made by the welfare state in terms of social justice, to which his opening paragraph is devoted, is a reminder that its creation was the _realization_ of the efforts and suffering of many, and was a long time coming.

The intriguing last sentence in the paragraph, imo was part of Lord Denning's art, but currently very topical. People can make up their own minds about who this controversial Master of the Rolls spoke for- some links to quotes attached below.

the eloquence of an unknown mill worker, via Jenny Lee, one time minister of culture, is a match to Lord Denning's own -

"There was a strict rule in Nye's Ministry that any unsolicited gifts sent to him should be promptly returned. On one occasion, and only one, an exception was made. Nye brought home a letter containing a white silk handkerchief with crochet round the edge. The hanky was for me. The letter was from an elderly Lancashire lady, unmarried, who had worked in the cotton mills from the age of twelve. She was overwhelmed with gratitude for the dentures and reading glasses she had received free of charge. The last sentence in her letter read, "Dear God, reform thy world beginning with me," but the words that hurt most were, "Now I can go into any company." The life-long struggle against poverty which these words revealed is what made all the striving worthwhile."

extracted from this website
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUbevan.htm

if New Labour wants to buy into the 'something for nothing' line (not new or original - been around for centuries) thinking themselves clever not to blame the claimants - leave that to the tabloids, but blaming the system itself, nelligan's intro and historical facts pretty much nail that lie. hello! compulsory national insurance. i'd prefer it if they (a) took a care over the graves they're trampling on, and (b) took a look at the policy of increased means testing since the late 80s, allowing contributory benefits (and dependency increases) to wither - whilst 'Flexible labour' practices, _and_ increased work-place stress has risen.

i expect many rightsnet denizens have seen this Observer article -

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1692306,00.html

cash incentives to GP's to refuse sick notes?

oh, sorry, cash incentives to GP's to work with employment advisers to get people back to work, yeah right...

how much money the government is prepared to spend to stop people from receiving benefit remains to be seen, but bribing doctors with their arms up their backs shows how far they are prepared to go...

tell me it isn't about cutting the social security bill so that it leaves more to give to employers in cheap labour subsidy... and for tony to go to war with.

jj

almost forgot - enjoy

http://www.legalhumour.com/denning.asp
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/291053.stm

derek_s and Gareth Morgan:

Are we to take it that you are advocating some sort of corporal punishment ("stamping on") for those guilty or welfare benefit fraud?

I thought the administrative penalty/a fine or spell in prison was pretty harsh myself.

I think that there is in fact a difference between fraud committed by poor people and that committed by rich people and that they should be differently punished.... but then that sort of position requires a class analysis so may not be universally popular.

Perhaps then, on my position, if we are to have "stamping on" for benefit fraudsters we could have "pressing with stones" or some other medieval torture for tax fraudsters?

Martin.

How about "The Comfy Chair" (see Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition Sketch).

i only caught the second half of the programme - forgot it was on...if i wanted to be nit-picky i'd ask about the program bleep protocols...

i really like 'Life on Mars'- this fraud programme has made monday night tv night!! help! then, 'In the thick of it'...omigod! Newsnight went from the pre-greenpaper dramatised report on the 38% mental health IB briefing - loved the welsh -pilot depression lady very pleased to have been helped into work as a self-employed speed-dating organiser btw, before switching abruptly to sven's fall from his perch - sentence suspended until after the world cup, whatever that is. just joking.

funnily enough, saw a disabled guy (DLA MOB) today who has been asked to attend a fraud interview under caution next week. he was helped into work as a taxi driver by an employment adviser, just under 3 years ago. part time, less than 16 hours a week. he borrowed money for the start up costs - the jobcentre paid for the 'plate'. four months later, it had made his feet worse and he was having to attend an NHS chiropodist weekly, and realized he needed an automatic vehicle. he borrowed some more money. unfortunately, he didn't manage to get it on the road because he couldn't afford to tax it, and some time later he borrowed some more money, and plated another vehicle, which kept breaking down. he periodically updated his jobcentre adviser of his difficulties in making any profit, but there was no pressure and he could keep on receiving his JSA while he was earning less than £20 a week and working under 16 hours. oh ya, and at some point he fell for an internet 'pay us money and start your own business' scam that went exactly nowhere...


jj

I thought last nights prog was much more insidious, it came across as propaganda basically, that if you're claiming as a lone parent then you're not allowed to have any sort of social life.

And you'll have fraud investigators camping outside your house, who will take the proverbial **** out of you for your life style choices.

It's like disinformation in action, manipulating tv audiences with false conclusions drawn from very dubious inferences. Setting a scene where public support for swingeing cuts to social security take place against a backdrop of stereotyping and factual inaccuracies/rumours.

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.....

I'm sure there are investigators who are reasonable people and who treat people sympathetically. However, there are those, and all of us welfs have our own stories to tell, who exceed their authority and who bully and intimidate claimants.

I remember when I used to work in a food factory when I left school. 48 Before the buyers came round to inspect we were all put on frantic cleanimg duties. The buyers saw what we wanted them to see.

I wasn't really paying attention........so feel free to put me right.

Wasn't it 2-1 to the claimants?

Woman from Bolton charged and convicted. Cut from shot with fag and splice to audio of saying a needed my inhaler.

Woman gardening at her boyfriends house before returning to her own house. No further action.

Woman being interviewed, then re-interviewed and producing Council tax bill at other address for alleged co-habitee. Appealled and won?

Maybe it was me.......

Woman gardening appealed and case was dropped by DWP.

Woman who produced CT bill for boyfriend - no further action taken after this evidence was produced.

I very much agree with Paul - propaganda, pure and simple!

On a related subject, please find below press release from HMRC. At first, I thought it really was Tax Fraud but no, was in fact Tax Credits again. Thats 3 PRs I've had re TC fraud, none for Tax Fraud...

Also, note at the end they give out her address.

Date: January 31, 2006 Time: 12:45

£50K FINE FOR TAX FRAUD

A tax cheat who pleaded guilty to six counts of tax fraud at Blackfriars Crown Court was last week ordered to pay fines totalling £50,000.

Ljiljana Dejanovic, 43, of Lillie Road, Fulham, London pleaded guilty to making five fraudulent Working Families Tax Credit and New Tax Credit claims and one count of failure to declare income from property. Dejanovic was fined £25,000 for the latter count and £5,000 for each of the five fraudulent tax credits claims.

In addition, following an application under the Criminal Justice Act, the Judge awarded a confiscation order for £71,000, the amount lost to the Crown as a result of her crimes. Dejanovic must pay this within 28 days or face a default sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

Summing up Judge Pontius said:

"You are a dishonest and a greedy person. Your crimes warrant a custodial sentence however, given the mitigating circumstances and to avoid further costs to the public a fine was the more appropriate punishment."

HM Revenue & Customs Financial Investigator Jim Wilson said:

"We are committed to using our powers to ensure that crime does not pay and will seek confiscation orders in all appropriate cases. Criminals need to realise that Parliament has provided, through the law, the means to hit fraudsters where it hurts, in their pockets."

Mrs Dejanovic came from Yugoslavia and gained employment in the hospitality industry, working in various hotels. She met and married Zoran Dejanovic. Between 1993 and 1998 Mr & Mrs Dejanovic purchased three properties, their family home and two further properties for rental purposes. The rental income was not declared and therefore untaxed.

Dejanovic made claims to Working Family Tax Credits and then New Tax Credits. On all of her claims she failed to declare this additional income, assets, her husband and his income from self-employment. She made the claims as a single parent stating that she was divorced.

This case was successfully prosecuted by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO). RCPO is an independent prosecuting authority, which reports to the Attorney General, and is responsible for the prosecution of all HMRC cases in England and Wales.

Notes for editors

1. Ljiljana Dejanovic, date of birth 19/06/62

2. Address: Lillie Road, Fulham London SW6 7PX

3. Nature of Offences: Cheat, Contrary to common Law. False Accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) Theft Act 1968.

4. The Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office (RCPO) was created by Royal Assent on 7 April 2005. An independent prosecuting authority, RCPO reports directly to the Attorney General, and is responsible for prosecuting some of the largest drug and fraud cases in the UK. For further information about RCPO, please contact their press office on 020 7865 5666.

Issued by HM Revenue & Customs Media Relations Team

Website www.hmrc.gov.uk
Confidential helpline
Tel: 0800 595 00

Tip of the week!

For anyone who saw last night's edition of "On The Fiddle"; if you are planning to take skins into a nightclub (where there is a likelihood of being searched by the bouncers) then dont take a packet of fags with you but a pouch of rolling tobacco instead.

It didn't make any difference to the bouncers at Liverpool's very own (and now sadly defunct AFAIK) Voodoo club a few years back - despite me having a guesty, they nicked my skins and gave me my tobacco back, all my protestations about "what's the bleeding point of that?" falling on deaf ears and stony implacable gazes....

Lol! We scousers can be awkward sods sometimes. I trust there was a ciggy machine in the club as a beer without a fag would be unthinkable. I really will have to pack the things in.

Come on Shawn why can't we have polls???

An analysis of smoking v. non smoking wras could be dynamite.

Third option of 'those who have given up for five years but still feel delirious smelling a newly lie fag' possible?

Those confiscation orders that were meant to stop terrorists and organised criminals...

Going back to 'On the Fiddle' - was anyone as surprised as I was by the pursuit of the 'mystery man' who had been seen working. As far as I could tell, the investigators were prepared to devote three staff and any number of work hours tracking down the origins of a man, who had been seen to be working. They had no evidence that he was claiming benefits, or indeed, who he was. It turned out at the end that he was indeed a wrong'un, and had been signing on. But how many other people are being watched, because they have been spotted 'working'? And how much public money is being wasted chasing up hunches which don't have such a happy outcome for the investigator?

I remember a few years back attending a Fraud Interview with a cl where the BIU had spent two weeks following his next door neighbour (a bona fide bus driver). The look on the investigators face when he realised my cl wasn't the bloke in the photos was a picture!

I particularly liked the bit when the jobseeking bloke said he was advised by the jobcentre to come off JSA and claim ICB instead. Does Tony (peace be upon him) know about this?

I once repped on a LTAHW case where a LA fraud team had followed alleged partner's vehicle for a good 50+ miles on numerous occasions. There was copious evidence of which service stations he stopped at for tea breaks and what he had whilst he was there. Completely unnecessary as they already knew where he was working and how much he earned. In the same investigation there were also several references to two other 'men' regularly seen leaving the client's house. These turned out to be her two school-age sons. The appeal was succesful by the way. Off to roll a fag now.

sounds like an 'ovies' scam.

i noticed the Dweep ran one of their 'denounce a neighbour' ads during the commercial break in Channel 4's 'Shameless'- obviously not bothered about giving away where they're coming from - why should they? blatant classism, unlike racism and sexism isn't illegal and they can be as offensive as they like -uk tax payers pick up the tab.

i love 'Shameless' and can see why it's so critically acclaimed. it's somehow reassuring to know that pickled, puddled, or pushed up a wall, Frank and his mates still wouldn't fall for the idea that £350,000 gifts were kosher, in any world but elton john's.

not sure they've got the hang of this 'profiling' lark...

jj