ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

Scherzer Blog

Why is it important to search criminal records under the company’s name along with its principals?

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a corporation may be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of its directors, officers, employees, and agents. The most common criminal cases are filed for regulatory causes, but other charges also may be brought depending on the severity of the crime and the adequacy of the civil and administrative enforcement actions, among many considerations.

On a related note, several months ago, we posted a case study from our files about one of the biggest payroll-tax frauds in U.S. history. The $200 million fraud led to the subject company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing and its subsequent federal indictment. The company’s former CEO, who was considered the mastermind of the fraud, was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2008. Prosecutors in the case argued that a guilty plea from the company itself also was needed to deter similar crimes by other companies. However, the court ruled that, among other regards, this would lead to unnecessary costs of a trial and damage the legal claims contained in the bankruptcy.

July 2nd, 2010|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

What’s wrong with using information from Facebook, MySpace, Friendster or personal Web sites for hiring decisions?

Some companies believe this is a cheap way to obtain information about an applicant. Unfortunately for the applicant, this type of background check is not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) if it is performed by the employer. And since the sites are not mandated to investigate and correct errors, the employer may miss out on hiring a qualified candidate. Additionally, much of the information posted on these sites cannot be discussed in an interview, and if not handled properly, the employer may be sued for claims under various anti-discrimination statutes, ADA, privacy laws, and state “off-duty” conduct statutes. Employers who use third-parties to conduct background investigations by searching social Web sites and Internet postings must comply with the FCRA, and thus explicitly state in the background check authorization that social networking and/or other such sites will be accessed. The FCRA does not prohibit employers from obtaining consumer reports that contain information compiled from Internet sites; however, employers are required to disclose to the applicant that the information was the basis of an adverse employment decision (Id. § 1681b(b)(3)(B)(i)(I).

Despite the liability exposure and unreliability of the information, various surveys show that employers do use information from social networking sites and blogs to support their decision to hire or disqualify an applicant. The most common causes for disqualification include:

  • Information or photographs about drinking or using drugs
  • Provocative or inappropriate photographs or information
  • Poor communication skills evident in postings
  • Bad-mouthing previous employer or fellow employee
  • Misrepresentation of qualifications
  • Discriminatory remarks related to race, gender, religion, etc.
  • Unprofessional or provocative screen name
  • Indications of criminal behavior
  • Posted confidential information from previous employers
July 1st, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Update on Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102) which amends Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 that restricts employer’s use of credit history in employment decisions

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries published its final administrative rules regarding Senate Bill 1045 (OL 2010. Ch. 102). The regulations go into effect July 1, 2010. The Oregon Revised Statute 659A.885 specifically prohibits an employer from obtaining or using credit history for employment purposes of an applicant or employee unless that credit history information is “substantially job-related, and the employer’s reasons for the use of such information are disclosed to the employee or prospective employee in writing.” The state of Oregon set up a hotline (at 971-673-0824) to explain the new regulations. The regulations can also be viewed online at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/RulesSoS0052010.pdf

July 1st, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

What laws require or influence background screening of volunteers?

Whether a volunteer is required by law to submit to a background check depends on the type of organization for which the volunteer work is performed. Several state and federal laws regulate health and public safety organizations, some of which require screening of both employees and volunteers. There are also other laws that provide protection to at-risk populations, especially children. One such law allows the public to access information about convicted sex offenders. For more information and a link to state sex offender registries, see the U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/index.html.

The laws that facilitate an organization’s screening of volunteers are the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998 (VCA) Public Law 105-251, which amended the National Child Protection Act of 1993 (NCPA), 42 USC § 5119(a) a.k.a. “Oprah’s Law” allowing volunteer organizations to access federal criminal records, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 USC §1681, if a background check is performed by a third-party background screening firm.

June 30th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

What are “specialty consumer reports?”

“Specialty consumer reports” are compiled by specialty consumer agencies for targeted users such as insurance companies, employers, and landlords. The agencies collect information from a variety of sources and may include civil and criminal records, credit history, bankruptcy filings, driving records, business relationship information with banks or insurance companies, and even medical information.

Most consumers are unaware of the existence of a “specialty consumer report” unless they have been denied a job, insurance, or housing rental. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) imposes certain obligations on the specialty reporting agencies, the users of such reports, and those that furnish information for the reports. (See  http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/credit/bus33.shtm for more information.) When adverse action is taken based on the information in the report, the FCRA mandates that users of specialty consumer reports provide to the subject an “adverse action notice” along with a free copy of the report. The subject also has the right to dispute inaccurate information.

June 30th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , |

Alert Regarding Sexual Offender Data

A new California case came out March 23, 2010 that gives a background firm protection when it reports sexual offender data from the Megan’s Law Web site, and also clarifies that the prohibition of using sex offender registration information for employment does not apply when there is a person at risk.
For a quick review of the case, see:
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1440/california-case-protects-constitutional-right-of-background-screening-firm-to-report-sex-offender-registration.
The actual case can be found at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B214653.PDF

March 26th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: |

A career in fraud

 

A prospective client investigation was ordered on a company and its president, but the preliminary information on the president was enough to reject the subject or any company under his direction from the possible business engagement. Initial court searches uncovered a 2001 criminal misdemeanor conviction for possession of a false identification to be used to defraud. The index did not provide much information and the file was destroyed by the court, so SI’s analyst turned to media sources to dig deeper. Sure enough, one article referenced guilty pleas entered in 2002 by the subject and his business partner for hiring imposters to take the Series 7 securities brokers’ examination for them. Each was sentenced to a year of probation and fined $5,000. Other articles from 2002 reported three civil cases for fraud in locations where the subject appeared to have no residential history, and further disclosed that the subject and his partner had been statutorily disqualified from working for a broker licensed by the National Association of Securities Dealers, ordered to disgorge profits and interest totaling $4,649,125 and each were fined $15,000 in civil penalties in 2006. Articles also linked the subject to a con artist who had admitted to defrauding Jewish organizations and individuals of $80 million during the 1990s. Most recently, the FDIC had executed a written agreement with the subject and (the same) business partner after they allegedly failed to seek FDIC approval before making an investment in an unregistered bank holding company. On the whole, this company president had been engaged in fraudulent behavior for nearly a decade and no amount of legal or regulatory action appeared to change his mode of operation.

March 26th, 2010|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , , |

Updating investigations as part of your risk management strategy

 

As part of its standard risk management program, our client requested background investigations of two individuals in connection with an engagement continuation. SI had conducted investigations of these subjects three years prior when our client initially began its consulting engagement with them. No negative information was located in the previous investigations; however, our client quickly learned the value of conducting periodic updates.

The new investigation revealed recently filed federal indictments charging both subjects with aiding and abetting in the evasion of taxes owed on their salaries between 2006 and 2008, amounting to more than $450,000 each. The government also charged that subject #1 directed his wife to evade income taxes on her salary between 2004 and 2007 by claiming as many as 99 exemptions on her W-4. Additionally, searches of the State Real Estate Board disclosed a pending disciplinary action against subject #2 for “misstating a material fact” that “included fraud.” Both subjects had filed personal Chapter 7 bankruptcies in December 2008 and had been named as debtors in multiple judgments and tax liens for amounts ranging from $35,000 to $2,300,000. The subjects had begun their start-up company three years earlier with clean records, but in short-order they had become a liability to our client.

September 15th, 2009|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , |

Background investigation reveals untruth in advertising

 

SI was engaged to investigate a national company along with two of its principals as part of our client’s risk management program. The company’s ads have appeared almost daily in major newspapers and on the Internet, and the merits of its consumer services (for confidentiality, we can’t say what they are) have been touted in the professionally scripted testimonials of “real” customers. But SI’s investigation found media reports and court documents showing that the claims were not so credible. There is a pending federal class-action lawsuit against the company and its principals alleging several fraudulent business practices, including the misleading advertising of a service guarantee that “is riddled with restrictions, waivers and limitations” and service enrollments without authorization. Six additional lawsuits for similar causes of action are pending in various county-level courts.

Further, SI’s investigation uncovered the checkered backgrounds of the two principals behind the company. Searches of bankruptcy records revealed that both subjects had filed for protection from creditors – and in the co-founder’s case, had filed multiple times. Also missing from the company’s pitch was that the co-founder’s previous career in a similar business culminated in a federal judge’s order barring him from “promoting, offering for sale, performing or distributing any product or service related to [consumer] services.”  Had our client’s decision-makers relied on the company’s presentation of itself and its principals, they would not have been able to realistically assess the risk of engaging in business with the subjects. While a search of media stories might reveal complaints against a potential client, it’s a full in-depth investigation that brings all the pieces together.

September 8th, 2009|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top