The issue for the police is one of resource - a fraud case could take two years to investigate, tying up valuable resources for perhaps one or two convictions whereas a squad of officers targeting a spate of burglaries would have a more instant return. This is not a difficult decision given police priorities. There is a danger, however, that by laying down rules for referring cases to the police in the interests of efficiency that they may have the reverse effect i.e. a strengthening of the attitude that fraud is a result of the private sector not taking sufficiently tough preventative action and, unless certain criteria are met, fraud is off the police agenda. The SOI allows the transmission of information which the police hold or to which they have access in certain circumstances and under controlled conditions to Accredited Investigators working on behalf of such complainant organisations. This is to be welcomed.
Information is vital for both investigation and preventative work.
It would appear that the intention is that the police will disclose information only after a case has been accepted as an SOI case and in controlled conditions. It follows that information from the police is likely to be denied in the early stages of an investigation - in our experience often the most critical stage. This must warrant some further consideration by the Government both to make preventative action more effective and the due process of law more efficient. When the relevant police contact point receives such a referral, he will make a decision whether or not to accept the matter as an SOI case. This is an understandable stance given the police responsibilities but further clarification on the acceptance criteria would be useful.