Q&A with an ex-fraudster: Why new fraud laws won't stop criminals

Q: Laurence Howland (Director of Risk and Compliance, Buckles Solicitors): Is the UK’s new anti-fraud legislation actually going to deter professional criminals?

A: Honestly, no. Fraudsters "don't have any care in the world for the legislation". If you're a white-collar offender, you could be looking at doing only about two years of actual time served in an open prison. That risk is simply not a deterrent.

I heard a drug smuggler say he was getting into fraud because it requires no serious investment - he committed most of his frauds using an iPhone - and the prison time is insignificant compared to other crimes. This low-risk, high-reward environment is why fraud accounts for 41% of reported crime.

Q: James Ricketts (Head of Risk and Compliance, Blacks Solicitors): For impersonation fraud, how easy is it for a criminal to obtain a legitimate passport in someone else's name?

A: It is frighteningly easy. One method is to find vulnerable or easily exploitable people, and pay them a small fee (like £500 to international students leaving the country ) to take over their bank accounts. Once you have a foothold on an identity, you can get a legitimate passport.

Q: Eloise Butterworth (Head of Risk and Compliance, Hive Risk): How can we protect our firms when criminals are using sophisticated methods, like deepfakes, to bypass controls?

A: It’s really tough. When a deepfake voice clone of a CEO calls in an instruction, it's almost impossible for good AI to detect because the bad guys are always changing their methods slightly.

Q: Laurence Howland (Director of Risk and Compliance, Buckles Solicitors): You mentioned convincing yourself that fraud was a "victimless crime" and that banks would simply refund the money. Do you think the financial sector needs to be more open about the true human impact of fraud, or would that just help fraudsters?

A: It’s a complex question, but the honest answer is that the fraudster doesn't care about the victim's pain until they are forced to confront it.

When I was committing serious fraud, I used a rationalisation that's well-known in criminology, called the Cressy Triangle. My reasoning was: "Everyone hates the banks, the banks are dishonest, and they can afford the loss. It's a victimless crime." However, I stopped because I was forced to face the devastation I caused, like seeing the victim impact statement and the effect it had on my own family. For firms, understanding that you are fighting a mindset, not just a technical control (a human-first approach!), is essential for resilience.

Q: What's the one or two most important pieces of practical advice you would give to a law firm right now?

A: Firstly, truly know your client. Don't just tick the boxes. You must understand your client and their source of funds, where the money really comes from.

2. Secondly, always apply the 'Sniff Test.' If a transaction seems odd, unreasonable, or worthy of further digging, you must dig. Do not let fee-earners put pressure on compliance teams to rush things over the line for the sake of getting a quick cut.

Fraudsters will constantly adapt, so your vigilance must, too.