The Consequences of CV Fraud
In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that profits made by an employee who committed CV fraud in order to gain a senior position, should be confiscated.
A Recent Case of CV Fraud
In R v Andrews [2022], Mr Andrewes applied for the position of CEO at St Margaret's Hospice in 2004. He claimed to have relevant qualifications and experience which he did not in fact have. Both the degree he claimed to hold, and the experience he said he had were considered essential to the role and he would not have been employed without them. Mr Andrewes was said to have performed well in the role during his tenure.
Mr Andrewes remained in post until March 2015 when his employment was terminated after the truth about his qualifications and experience started to emerge.
In January 2017 Mr Andrewes was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and two counts of fraud. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and the Crown sought a confiscation order against him. His net earnings during the relevant period were £643,602.91 and the available amount was agreed to be £96,737.24. The judge ordered the confiscation of that sum, rejecting Mr Andrewes' argument that he had not benefited from his criminal conduct because he had earned his remuneration from the work he did.
Mr Andrewes appealed against the confiscation order and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court.
Was the Confiscation Order Successful?
The Supreme Court restored the confiscation order. It would have been disproportionate to confiscate Mr Andrewes' full net earnings as there was value in the services he performed for the hospice. However, Mr Andrewes would not have obtained the position as CEO if he was truthful about his qualifications and experience in his application. The court should seek to remove the profit made by the fraud by confiscating the difference between the higher earnings obtained through the fraud, and the lower earnings that would have been obtained had there been no fraud. The Supreme Court held that a confiscation order for the amount of £244,568 would be proportionate in this case. As the available funds were lower than this, the recoverable amount was limited to £96,737.24.