In Stopping Bank Fraud, We've Breakdowns on Every Level

When it comes to stopping banking fraud, we have breakdowns on every level. 

The first to have responsibility are the banks. They are at the point of the crime. They are the ones that collected all the information -- social security number, passwords used for online banking, etc. --that are essential to pinning the crime on the perpetuator.

The second to have responsibility are the police. The way we set society up, they are the protectorates of the people. They are the ones whose charge it is to investigate, collect the evidence, build the case, and send it on to the prosecutors.

The third in our line of responsibility? The prosecutors. It is their charge to take the case before the judge and get a conviction

 The banks are the gatekeepers in the whole process. The police and the prosecutors rely on them for most of the information necessary to arrest and convict.

Unfortunately, the banks largely abdicate their responsibility. Our system is jeopardized from the moment it comes out of the gate because of the banks. When you see a crime, you report it, right? Banks are under no less of an obligation than are the citizenry. But, in reality, the number of times the bank takes the initiative to call the police and report the crime are minimal. Instead, they often withhold information from the police -- no surveillance videos, etc. They suppress release of the markings on the case such as the security codes and usernames and passwords created by the applicant. Despite having all the information necessary to catch the criminal, bank fraud departments seldom pursue the criminal. They investigate far enough to determine if they should return the money to the victim; but that is it.

Often, police departments do little more than take a report. The investigation does not go further than reviewing the information provided by the victim. If a real investigation is to take place, it is left with the victim to do it. Our police are swamped with domestic violence and other crimes, but we cannot 

Imagine the frustration of the police when they painstakingly put together a case, only to have the prosecutors say there just isn't enough evidence. I am privy to a  case (I was the victim) in which the perpetrator of the crime left her name on both ends of the transaction: The check was written to her, and went into her bank account. Yet, the district attorney's office said, Sorry, not enough evidence. What? What more evidence do you need? What more evidence would it even be possible to collect? 

And, even in cases in which the police do not provide enough information to convict, the prosecutors (when they are reviewing the cases), should be concerned with spotting the holes that can and should be filled. They are the lawyers trained in the law. They know the norms that must be met. They should point out to the police the things that could be done to improve the case. Instead of just saying, There is not enough information to convict, they should be saying, Go back and get this piece of information and I think we will have enough evidence to persuade the judge.

Which brings up perhaps a forth level in which we are failing: the courts. Are judges failing to convict for whatever reason, perhaps because our prisons are full? That is a problem; committing wire fraud and bank fraud are serious offenses -- or should be -- and need to be treated as such by the judge.

And, perhaps there is a fifth level in which we are failing. If, after going through all the above stages to bring a conviction, the criminal is but slapped on the hand, receiving but a $5,000 fine, we are not appreciating the severity of the crime. We cannot be soft on crime. The punishment needs to include jail time. Our legislatures become the fifth responsible party. They are responsible for creating the laws.