Posted by Cristina Vasile on Mon, May 14, 2012 @ 01:56 PM
Yahoo’s chief executive officer Scott Thompson stepped down yesterday after an investigation by Third Party, a hedge fund and major investor in the company, revealed that he had lied about his education on his resume. Although Mr. Thompson’s biography indicated that he had earned degrees in accounting and computer science from Stonehill College, he never actually earned a degree in computer science.
Mr. Thompson is not the only executive to resign following revelations that he or she lied or embellished academic credentials:
- In April 2007, the admissions dean for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was forced to resign following revelations that she had fabricated academic degrees from Union College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Albany Medical School.
- In 2006, CEO of RadioShack, Dave Edmonson, resigned after it emerged that he lied about having degrees in theology and psychology.
- In 2002, Veritas Software’s stock price fell some 16% after it emerged that its CFO had fabricated his education. Not surprisingly, the revelation also led to his resignation.
- In 2002, the CEO of Bausch & Lomb, Ronald Zarrella, was forced to forfeit his bonus after it was revealed that he had never earned his MBA from New York University as claimed. Mr. Zarrella attended the university but never actually completed the program.
Resume padding and exaggerating academic credentials are more common that one might think, and its prevalence extends far beyond the C-suite. In 2010, a HireRight survey of 1,818 organizations found that 69% of respondents reported that they had caught a job candidate lying on his or her resume. Moreover, the FBI has estimated that over 500,000 people nationwide claim college degrees that they never actually earned. Even in cases much less high-profile than Yahoo’s assuming that qualifications presented by potential candidates are always legitimate can damage your company’s reputation and bottom line.
At MSAI, we recommend employment verification as a crucial component of any pre-employment screening. In a tough job market, prospective employees are more likely than ever to falsify or exaggerate their academic credentials. As the Yahoo case demonstrates, the fallout from discovering that an employee has falsified his or her qualifications can be wide reaching, and quite embarrassing. Including education verification in pre-employment screening is a vital way to prevent attracting this kind of negative attention.
Cristina Vasile is an Investigative Reserach Analyst at MSA Investigations
Posted by Joe Cordes on Mon, May 07, 2012 @ 02:24 PM
Yesterday, the New York Daily News published an article entitled Jimmy Roemer served more than three years in prison in $10 million fraud against the MTA, then he was hired for another MTA project, about a convicted Felon named Jimmy Roemer, who was hired to manage the payroll at the one of the biggest construction projects currently underway in New York City, the expansion of the Long Island Railroad to Grand Central Station.
Jimmy Roemer, a crane operator from union Local 14 should never been allowed to work on the site, let alone be the person who was managing the payroll. Roemer had been managing the payroll for the MTA back in 2003 at another large construction project run by the MTA, as they were rebuilding their lower Manhattan headquarters. On that project Roemer was one of the key conspirators in a fraud that siphoned over 10 Million dollars of MTA money by billing inflated hours for labor and for non-existent workers. In that case Roemer ultimately plead guilty in 2003 to fraud, obstruction of justice and tax evasion. He served three years in prison and completed three years of probation in 2009.
Regarding the most recent incident, MTA representative, Adam Lisberg, told the Daily News, “He was hired by the contractor, and we don’t pry into their hiring methods. We have a very robust system for checking the fitness and responsibility for all of our contractors, and it is on them to do the work the way we expect…..We don’t sit down with their payrolls and examine everybody on it.”
Certainly I can understand that the MTA doesn’t have the resources to vet every employee that a general contractor might hire, but perhaps they should require that the contractor provide proof of a legitimate due diligence background investigation for certain sensitive positions, like those persons who might authorize the amount of labor to be billed to the MTA. Having different levels of background screening for different positions within an organization is a cornerstone of any effective hiring program and many organization routinely conduct these investigations. An entry level clerk might not require more than a basic background investigation, while a bookkeeper, accountant or chief financial officer might require a more in depth investigation into their background as they routinely handle financial matters that could put a company out of business.
The real mistake in this case, is that apparently no investigation was ever conducted into the background of Mr. Roemer, even though he admitted to the contractor Dragados-Judlau that he had served time in prison. According to the Daily News, Roemer’s supervisor Sean Clevenstine admits that he didn’t know why Roemer had been in prison and didn’t ask. The most basic search for criminal records at the federal level would have very easily revealed Mr. Roemer’s criminal past. Even a cursory Google search of the internet reveals numerous press clippings from Mr. Roemer’s conviction back in 2003. The MTA and the general contractor could quite easily have prevented this embarrassing incident from ever happening by ensuring that an effective and consistent background screening program is conducted on all new hires and for those current employees moving into sensitive positions within an organization.
Joe Cordes is a Vice President at MSA Investigations
Posted by Michelle Risley on Tue, May 01, 2012 @ 03:11 PM
The Background
Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidelines for employers concerning the use of criminal records in hiring and firing staff. Under the new policy, employers cannot categorically exclude job candidates with a criminal record, particularly in instances that suggest racial or ethnic discrimination.
In its first revision to the policy since 1987, the EEOC – which enforces federal laws prohibiting workplace discrimination – notes how a spike in incarceration rates over the past twenty years has disproportionately affected African-American and Hispanic men. Should current incarceration rates remain unchanged, the guidelines estimate that one in three African-American men and one in six Hispanic men could serve time in jail, compared to one in 17 Caucasian men.
Two key concepts have heavily influenced the EEOC’s approach to criminal history screening and discrimination. The first, disparate treatment, is when employers interpret someone’s criminal history differently because of his or her race or national origin. It’s a possible civil rights violation. The second concept is disparate impact. Disparate impact tends to affect groups who are already subjects of discrimination – victims of disparate treatment – and further limits their employment opportunities.
How Should This Affect Your Employee Screening Policies?
Some important points for employers to consider:
- The difference between an arrest and a conviction is a crucial one. An arrest is an accusation of a crime, not proof that someone is guilty of committing it. (The old adage “innocent until proven guilty” comes to mind.) A conviction record generally provides “sufficient evidence” that a person was guilty of a crime as charged.
- Still, the conduct that led to an arrest or conviction matters: consider whether it makes someone unfit for the job in question. Employers should also think about whether excluding someone with a criminal record from a particular job is “consistent with business necessity.” Does someone’s criminal record history give you reason to believe that he or she could potentially harm or significantly impact your business?
- Accordingly, the guidelines encourage employers to develop a screening policy that takes into account the context in which an offense occurred, how much time has passed and how it would affect an employee’s ability to perform the job in question.
- While the guidelines offer more nuanced examples, a driving ticket is a straightforward case-in-point. If a job is unrelated to driving, ruling out a minority candidate because of a minor traffic infraction could constitute an EEOC violation. It applies whether a company’s screening process categorically excludes people with a criminal record, or whether a human resources department uses evidence of a criminal history to automatically reject an individual applicant.
- Companies need to have a “neutral policy” in place, where criminal history is evaluated in a consistent manner for all job applicants, regardless of their race or national origin. This is particularly relevant in instances where two job applicants have a comparable criminal record.
How this Will Affect Your Company
As an employer, you’re probably wondering how the recent revision affects you. Although not legally binding, the guidelines can influence how courts rule in employee lawsuits. Moreover, the EEOC has the authority to file discrimination claims. In 2011 alone, it secured nearly $250 million in settlements for people who claimed they were victims of civil rights bias, not including money obtained through lawsuits. This past January, PepsiCo, Inc. agreed to pay $3.13 million to settle an EEOC claim that its employee screening process had excluded more than 300 African Americans who had been arrested or convicted of minor offenses.
Take the Time to Reevaluate Your Company’s Criminal History Screening Program
The new guidelines make it more important than ever for employers to understand the breadth and depth of the sources they use to conduct criminal history searches. The New York Times recently reported that as many as 90 percent of employers run these background checks on prospective employees, compared to 51 percent in 1996.
The ability to conduct criminal history searches quickly and cheaply over the Internet has obviously contributed to this surge, but as we’ve written about here, doing these checks the right way is more complicated than it seems. It’s important to know the limitations of the sources you use, and to realize that there is no such thing as a “nationwide” criminal records search available to you.
For higher-profile positions, hiring a due diligence firm to undertake the research will ensure that the searches are as thorough and accurate as possible.
Still, it’s not practical or cost-effective to do this for all new hires. Do your own due diligence: read the EEOC guidelines. Think about how the guidelines relate to the types of jobs you need to fill. Research the different available criminal history databases and their limitations. Then, develop the best program you can afford.
The Takeaway
It’s in your company’s best interest to devise a comprehensive screening program, and to think carefully about how you spend your money on identifying employees’ criminal records. When you see suggestions of a criminal history, ask the right questions. This approach will not only help protect you from EEOC scrutiny, it –like all good due diligence – could prevent you from a costly or embarrassing bad decision.
Michelle Risley is a senior investigative analyst at MSA Investiations.
Posted by Joe Cordes on Thu, Jul 21, 2011 @ 03:17 PM
We recently had an unusual inquiry from a person about lifting fingerprints from multiple works of art. This person had bought some expensive pieces of art from a person who was close to the artist, who died over thirty years ago. There was some question as to the authenticity of the items. Since the art was crafted in the late 1980’s, then we would assume that any fingerprints would have been transferred to the art at that time.
First, the person first wanted to know if it was possible to identify the presence of latent fingerprints on various works of art that were over 30 years old. The question was, “how long will latent fingerprint evidence last on an object”?
Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water and if left undisturbed.
Estimates about the age of latent prints are unreliable when the experts guessing have no idea what was on the fingers that touched a surface, so you will generally not be able to determine if the fingerprints are fresh versus old. Latent prints that develop "quickly, strongly or dark" are not necessarily consistent with having been "recently" deposited. Unless scientific analysis of latent print residue on evidence was completed before processing with powder or chemicals to visualize latent prints, then the 
nature of the latent print residue deposited by the fingers or palms cannot be known. Circumstantial evidence such as information that an item was cleaned thoroughly with glass cleaner, soap and water, etc., could date latent prints on the item as not being older than the last thorough cleaning.
Any surface that is about as smooth as the miniature corrugated cardboard type ridges on your fingers can potentially bear identifiable latent fingerprints... and the flexibility of the finger skin can often also conform to relatively rough surfaces such as imitation leather dashboards. Fingerprints from crime scenes have been identified on papers, cigarettes, fruit, crumpled aluminum cans, plastic garbage bags, bed sheets, rocks, and thousands of other surfaces
The person also wanted to know if latent fingerprints were found, was it then possible to lift them for comparison to fingerprints that might be available on file for the deceased artist? The person believed that the artist may have been arrested in at some point in his life and therefore law enforcement might have his fingerprints on file. The answer to this question is, that as long as there is a known fingerprint record on file somewhere, it can be used to make a comparison with a “lifted” fingerprint print to make a positive identification.
The state criminal justice agencies are always a good first stop in searching for fingerprint records of any person that would have been required to be fingerprinted due to an arrest (generally Penal Law misdemeanors and felonies). Other places to search would be fingerprint records mandated by certain federal and state laws in order to be licensed or work in certain fields for example, security guards, certain health care workers, bar owners, etc.
If the person is deceased and did not die of natural causes, you might also check with the coroner's office in the place were they died to see if they had conducted an autopsy. In New York City, an autopsy will trigger fingerprinting by an NYPD Detective assigned to the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. The fingerprint cards will be kept on file at the NYPD Detective Bureau’s DOA desk. In any case, if there are no available fingerprints to compare any “lifted” prints to, it makes no sense to “dust” any items for fingerprints.
Joe Cordes is the VP of Investigations at MSA Investigations
Posted by Joe Cordes on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 @ 10:26 AM
When I was a young Sergeant in the New York City Police Department I dated a girl who lived alone in a small privately owned apartment building in midtown Manhattan (NYC). She was always concerned that the superintendent, that she felt was creepy, was spying on her in her apartment. I could not discount the notion as I agreed that the superintendent was kind of creepy and certainly stranger things have been known to happen in NYC. She was most concerned when she was not home and knew the super had been in the apartment to fix something, let in the exterminator, fix the heat, etc.
Periodically, at her request, I would inspect the apartment to look for signs of hidden video cameras, audio devices and other eavesdropping equipment. At the time, I was a Sergeant in the NYPD’s Narcotics Division and was very familiar with a variety of tiny easy to hide “pinhole” cameras and other eavesdropping equipment that we used in our own investigations. What I also knew was that these miniature eavesdropping devices worked very well, were not very expensive and were very easy to hide.
I will say that the old painted-over electrical box above her bed did look a bit odd and although I never did find anything that doesn't mean she was being paranoid as this kind of thing does happen quite frequently. Just goggle terms like voyeur cam and hidden cam (but not while at work) and you will see that there is a huge market for this type of footage on the Internet. Unfortunately, the target of the spying is usually a young girl who is victimized in her own bathroom or bedroom or sometimes in a gym locker room where she also has an expectation of privacy.
Stephanie’s Law
New York State passed a law in 2003 to protect against unlawful surveillance and named it Stephanie’s Law after Long Island resident Stephanie Fuller, whose landlord, Shultz, had secretly videotaped her bedroom in her rented apartment. In pushing for stricter sentencing in these cases, lawmakers argued that these crimes were similar to sexual assaults. New York State redefined the laws to take into account new types of surveillance technology and classify these types of privacy invasions as sexual assaults. The law defines unlawful surveillance as the use or installation of a recording or imaging device to view, broadcast, or record a person dressing and undressing, or his or her sexual or private parts for the purpose of entertainment or profit without the individual’s permission and where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (§250 New York Penal Law). A conviction is punishable for up to 4 years for a first time offender and will require the perpetrator to file as a sex offender.
Something to consider
If you are moving into a new apartment, renting a beach house for the summer in Long Island or moving your daughter off campus into a private home or apartment building, you might want to consider having the place checked for bugs. Not the kind of bugs you need an exterminator for, but rather miniature eavesdropping devices that may be hidden and that could be spying on you or a loved one and recording or transmitting footage of your most private moments.
Professionals who can help are called TSCM or Technical Surveillance Counter Measure Technicians and they are experts at finding these devices using a combination of training, experience, sophisticated electronic detection equipment and hard work.
Click here to learn more about TSCM Inspections, aka Bug Sweeps
Click here to learn about the equipment used in a TSCM Inspection
Click here if you are interested in a free TSCM Consultation
Joe Cordes is the VP of Investigations at MSA Investigations
Posted by Joe Cordes on Fri, Jul 01, 2011 @ 03:47 PM
When we are conducting a background investigation on a person, we do not always have a legitimate business reason to run a full credit report on that person as part of that investigation. By law, we cannot obtain a person's credit report without a signed release. One of the great things about a credit report, other than the financial information that it provides, is that it provides information about a person's past addresses and can help us discover identity theft issues.
A Social Se
curity Trace report provides what is called a Credit Header. This is the information that is at the top of your credit card statement or "the header" of the statement as well as at the top of a Credit Report. The information will include any name or address ever associated with the social security number that was ever given to a company providing you credit or for which you applied for credit. This includes credit cards, mortgages, car loans and other lines if credit. It will also include any changes that you submited to companies providing you credit, like a change of address or maiden name. All of this historical information is complied by the big credit bureaus and is sold to companies that provide Social Security Trace reports.
A Social Security Trace report is helpful in an investigation, because it can tell us if the Social Security number provided is actually associated with the subject of the investigation. We can also, in most cases, decipher when the Social Security number was issued and in what state. This information can then be cross checked with other information previously obtained during the investigation.
Why is past address information so important?
Because it tells us where to focus our criminal records checks. Since there is no legitimate National Criminal Records check available for private companies and there are over 10,000 courthouses in the US, we need to narrow down the states and counties where the person lived and check in those areas for a criminal record. The Social Security Trace report can verify some addresses we might already have and also fill in some additional addresses that might otherwise be unknown. Since statistics show that in the US, more than 72% of persons arrested are either arrested in the county in which they live or an adjoining county, identifying past addresses is crucial to an effective background investigation.
Posted by Joe Cordes on Fri, Jun 24, 2011 @ 09:28 AM
We are sometimes asked by clients about the possibility of tracking people with GPS technology without them knowing they are being tracked. The reasons they want to do this vary; from tracking an employee or business partner in a company car, to tracking a teenager who might have just gotten their license or as it is in most of the requests, placing a GPS tracker in the car of a suspected unfaithful spouse.
Our response is that it is possible and in fact it is very straightforward and is being used more and more by private investigators. GPS trackers are small, reliable and very effective in tracking, logging and reporting the historical location of the vehicle to the investigator. The GPS system’s software also works seamlessly with many online map services such as Google Maps.
The question is, “Is it legal to track a car with GPS”?
GPS tracking law is determined at the State level and each State’s laws are typically different. It’s part of the private investigator’s responsibility to know the law and ensure that the device is being used in compliance with the law. Both the client and the private investigator could be liableif the GPS tracker is not used appropriately.
The legality of secretly installing a GPS tracker is a very fact-sensitive issue and needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Just like checking a person’s email, the legality of secretly planting a GPS tracker depends on who owns the vehicle. For example, spouses can legally access their spouse’s email in scenarios where there is a jointly owned computer or a computer that is used by the entire family.
The key issue in the planting of a GPS system is whether the person who was tracked had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most courts have yet to rule on the use of GPS devices and as such, there is some gray area, as the law is typically five years behind technological developments.
However, the short technical answer to the above question is, that if you own the vehicle or have joint ownership of it, then it is perfectly legal to use a GPS system to monitor it.
Most private investigators will require the client to show proof of ownership and sign an authorization that grants the private eye permission to install the tracking device.
Learn more about GPS Tracking - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Joe Cordes is the VP of Investigations at MSA Investigations
Posted by Joe Cordes on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 @ 10:10 PM
In light of the recent plight of Congressman Anthony Weiner, I once again feel abliged to assist my fellow middle-aged citizens, by providing some sound advise when it comes to technology. Before using any relatively new technology (smartphones, text messaging, Twitter) or not so new technology (like personal computers and email) please understand that errors in judgement, (and otherwise) made using any of these technologies are unforgiving to the uniformed. Please make sure that you really want to send that email, text, tweet, before you press send. Maybe you ought to think about it some more? Maybe sleep on it? Once it's out there, its out there.
Computer Forensic Techs make a good living by recovering a variety of data that people believe that they have deleted, from computers, servers, smart phones and other "memory" devices . Email is one of the easiest items to revover and in most cases deleted emails can be recovered, even if you believe that they no longer exist on your computer. Deleted emails are routinely recovered by computer forensic experts from a variety of email clients (Outlook, Entourage, Thunderbird, etc.).
When emails are deleted from your Inbox there is still a chance that they reside on the server or in other areas of a computer. Computer forensic tools and methods allow for the data extraction and examination of email storage including information that had been previously deleted. In the simplestist of terms, there really isn't a delete button on your keyboard. Yes of course the button is there, but it never really deletes anything and once you send an email, don't expect that you can pull it back.
Same thing for other files that you think you deleted from your computer or server, like Word documents and photographs and audio files, pretty much anything. When a file is deleted using standard methods, the contents of the file are not actually erased from the hard drive; the operating system merely erases a pointer to the file so that the file does not appear in the folders or directories, the file is actually still there, you just can't see it. Contrary to popular belief, digital files are not vaporized when the delete button is pushed, and therefore, such files are usually recoverable and usable by a properly trained and skilled Computer Forensic Tech.
Senate hearings into the 2008 financial crisis disclosed that LLoyd Blankfein and some other top level executives at Goldman Sachs, sometimes used the acronym LDL in their internal emails. LDL stands for “Let’s Discuss Live" and was used as a kind of shorthand for “Let’s not put this in an e-mail.”
I think there is something valuable for us all to learn from Mr. Blankfein and his associates. Not everything needs to be memorialized in an email, or posted on facebook, or tweeted, or texted. Sometimes you just need to speak with people face to face.
Learn more - Computer Forensics Frequently Asked Questions.
Joe Cordes is the VP of Investigations at MSA Investigations.
Posted by Joe Cordes on Tue, May 31, 2011 @ 03:15 PM
It always pays to do things right the first time. The same is true for any safe hiring program. MSA Investigations suggests you consider the following whenever considering hiring a new employee:
1. Save Time
Hire the right person the first time and save time recruiting, interviewing, negotiating, etc.
2. Save Money
Employing the wrong individual can cost you. Hire the best person for the job and you could save on hiring bonuses, paid salaries, recruiter fees, severance packages, legal fees, etc.
3. Avoid Lawsuits
If a recent hire poses a threat to your company, your partners and/or your employees, you may be exposed to a negligent hiring lawsuit.
4. Know the Truth
Many job applicants do not provide the truth on their resumes or in their interviews. The level of deception ranges from false degrees to feigned work history to nondisclosure of a criminal record. Be sure you can trust the individual with proprietary company information and financial data.
5. Hire the Best
Maintain your reputation and company culture by hiring the best candidate possible. Have a few members of your team interview the individual to get different perspectives, ask behavioral questions, and check references. Most importantly, once you’ve narrowed down the list of candidates, have an expert complete a Pre-Employment Screening investigation to ensure your company’s future.
MSAI offers Basic and Custom Pre-Employment Screening investigations to help you confirm the identity and background of a potential new hire.
Posted by Dana Rossi on Fri, Mar 25, 2011 @ 02:29 PM
The other day while working on a fairly standard Background Investigation for a long standing client, I began making the reference calls necessary to complete the investigation. I was baffled when one of the references said he’d never heard of the subject of the investigation, and the other reference said, “Yeah. I know him. But between you and me? He’s bad news.”
What?
I was floored. It’s not like I picked these references to call. Like any references, they were provided by the subject himself, and it completely knocked me over that he would list references who would a) speak ill of him, or b) not know him at all. Who does that?
More people than you think.
There is, in fact, a method to the madness of providing excellent references, and it involves more than just listing buddies or the first person that comes to mind at your last job. Below are three quick tips to picking your professional references, and ways to avoid being caught in an embarrassing situation.
Take your time, do it right
You know how it is. You’re nervous and a little crunched for time as you sit in the reception area filling out a preliminary employment application. You reach the section that asks you for references, but this is the last minute, so you hastily decide on your references and possibly even just list your friends. Bad idea. Instead, sit down ahead of time and really consider who you will use as your professional references—across the board. Think about your former jobs, and the work you liked doing most. Now, who are the people who saw or benefitted from this work the most? Big plus if they were a supervisor. Bigger plus if they were a repeatedly satisfied outside client. Big minus if they didn’t actually ever work with you in any capacity, and are just ready and willing friends looking to help you out.
So, are we cool?
Simple enough. Whenever you are thinking of listing a professional reference, send an email to that person and make sure it’s okay with them and that they will provide a good reference. Not only does this ensure that this person remembers working with you, but it alerts this person that a reference check call will be coming their way. When they know it’s coming, they are more likely to be prepared to give a clear and concise reference, rather than be responding from a place of surprise, which can read to a person checking references as hesitation to speak well of you, rather than just being caught off guard. So avoid it altogether. Email ahead of time.
The best of friends, the worst of references
I get it. It does make some sense. You want someone to provide the best possible reference for you, so you’re going to pick the person you were best buddies with at your last job, right? Wrong. When people try to list their best work pals to act as references, any seasoned reference checker (whether it’s a private investigator or HR professional) can smell something rotten in the State of Denmark almost immediately. These references will usually GUSH about you, and ramble on and on about how you are the most innovative and important thing to hit American business since electricity. Instead, select people who were supervisors, regular clients, or people in other departments who you dealt with on a regular basis that can vouch for your credibility and proficiency without getting all verklempt.
Dana Rossi is an Investigative Analyst at MSA Investigations