1999 Annual Report

Fraud & Forgery

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System does not include fraud, false pretenses, forgery, embezzlement, and confidence games among larceny. Yet in many cases, fraud is a much more serious crime than theft. Victims of check forgery and “con” games stand to lose thousands of dollars. Often added to this loss is the personal humiliation that accompanies being “duped” by a “con man.” The confidence game crook, a particularly crafty breed of criminal who has no qualms with deceiving his victims face-to-face, expects (often correctly) that his victim’s embarrassment will deter him or her from reporting the crime to the police.

Fraud & Forgery is up 3%, from 321 in 1998 to 331 in 1999

In 1999, 331 incidents of fraud and forgery were reported to the Cambridge Police, ranging from simple check forgery to elaborate confidence swindles. This total was almost even with the 321 reported during 1998.

Counterfeiting is one of the more devious types of fraud. True counterfeiters invest thousands of dollars for counterfeiting equipment to produce near copies of genuine dollar bills. The six incidents this year in Cambridge mostly involved $20 dollar bills, three of them at the CambridgeSide Galleria. Very likely, many counterfeit bills were passed and went undetected. The preferred tactic is to buy a low-value item with the forged bill, and receive genuine change. Counterfeiting is a federal crime and generally falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Secret Service, though the Cambridge Police Department often takes the initial report.

Embezzlement occurs when the employee of a company takes advantage of his position for his own financial gain, diverting company funds to himself. The means by which the offender accomplishes the embezzlement varies, from store clerks crediting false returns to their personal accounts, to shady employees not depositing money in the bank or making off with merchandise, to company accountants forging corporate records. Most of the incidents involve amounts between $400 to $6000 dollars.

The 1999 increase can be attributed to the growing incidence of “blue collar embezzlement” in which store clerks—often juveniles—leave work with the day’s deposits or a selection of merchandise. In a fairly common scenario, the clerk allows a friend to buy merchandise at greatly reduced cost, or allows a family member to smuggle expensive items out of the store. Unfortunately, a booming economy means that stores are forced to be less scrupulous about who they hire, and many stores are finding that their new employees have no qualms over funding a night at the movies with cash skimmed from the store’s register. Galleria and Harvard Square stores are affected most; many of those charged with this crime are juveniles from Boston.

The writing of checks on insufficient funds or closed accounts. This number is low because most “bounced” checks are not reported as criminal incidents, particularly if it seems to be an innocent mistake. Though some individuals are serial “paper hangers,” there were no patterns reported in Cambridge in 1999.

The fraudulent use of a lost or stolen check, with the offender forging the victim’s signature. This crime is often committed by someone who knows the victim and thus has access to his or her checks—a friend, a family member, a co-worker, or a roommate. Other check forgery incidents occur following a burglary, a larceny from a motor vehicle, or a larceny from a person.

ATM and credit card fraud were once categorized separately, but with the proliferation of “check cards,” the line between them has become blurred. Credit card fraud has become the most common type of fraud, and it is increasing every year. Since “check cards” can deplete entire accounts within hours without the offender having to know the victim’s PIN, owners of these cards should keep a close watch on them. Typically, the amount of money for which the victim is liable is higher on “check cards” than on credit cards.

This serious type of fraud has become a national concern, particularly with the proliferation of personal information on the Internet. The Cambridge Police Department has received fourteen reports of this crime so far in 1999, but because it crosses state and national boundaries, it would be unusual for a municipal police department to be able to follow the paper trail to its source. In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission was tasked with the responsibility for collecting information and investigating cases of identity theft. The FTC estimates that 40,000 people have their identities swiped each year.

How does someone steal your identity? Usually, all it takes is your name, date of birth, and social security number, which an identity thief can glom from multiple sources: your driver’s license; your loan, credit card, or mortgage applications; information you give over the Internet; even your garbage. Armed with this information, the thief assumes your identity and applies for credit cards, loans, and mortgages; orders products you can’t pay for; steals from your checking or savings account; obtains professional licenses, driver’s licenses, and birth certificates in your name; submits fake medical bills to private insurers; and otherwise makes a mess of your life and finances. If he is an all-around criminal, he may use your identification in his criminal enterprises. Eventually, a warrant may be issued with your name on it.

The damage can range from minor (you have to cancel some credit cards) to moderate (your credit report is ruined and you spend months straightening out your finances) to extremely serious (you get pulled over for speeding and suddenly find yourself in jail on a warrant for dealing cocaine in Miami).

In any event, the Federal Trade Commission is now authorized to help you out. If you would like more information, or if you are a victim of identity theft, you can call the local FTC office at 617-424-5960 or visit their location at 101 Merrimac Street, Suite 810, Boston, MA 02114-4719.

The most devious breed of fraud offender employs “flim flams” or “con games” which exploit the victim’s good will, gullibility, or greed and bilk them for what often amounts to thousands of dollars. We are warned to beware of offers that are “too good to be true,” but our defenses are many times overcome by the belief that an offer is “too good to pass up.”

The big news involves more arrests in the immortal “Big Carrot” scam, in which a group of swindlers, pretending to be employees of various Galleria stores, take cash from victims in exchange for laptop computers that they never deliver. After two scams in January, a Somerville man was re-arrested. The scam came back in June, however, with two more incidents and another incident in September. The group operating in Cambridge took a vacation during the summer months and was reported in Danvers and other area towns with shopping malls. Several arrests were made outside of Cambridge. Finally, in December, a final Cambridge incident netted the arrest of two men from Charlestown. None of the men arrested seem to be the ringleader—the artist who plans the scams and calls the victims—but regional investigators believe they have pinpointed the mastermind behind this 20-year scam, and they are working with local and state prosecutors.

The first “Utility Impostor” scam in over a year was reported on Salem Street in late January. A man in his 40s showed up at the residence of an elderly woman, claiming to be a plumber, but she wised up to their game and told them to get lost before they had a chance to steal anything. It was the only utility impostor scam in Cambridge in 1999.

Cambridge’s most prolific “odd jobs” con artist—a 42-year-old Broadway man—was reported several times in West Cambridge over summer and early fall. Presenting himself as a down-on-his-luck, caring father this swindler offered to do yard work our house work for $50-100—even offering a written contract in some cases. Occasionally, he would actually perform the work, but more often, he would take half or all of the money in advance and then never do the work. He has faced a judge’s gavel several times, but penalties for such a simple con game are never severe.

Back to the 1999 Annual Report Index

Page Created 04/04/00
Last Updated: 04/11/00 11:35:51