Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative danger, when used by criminals, of lever release rifles, MARS rifles, and standard hunting rifles; and what evidence such assessment is based on.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
The Government has included provisions in the Offensive Weapons Bill to prohibit rapid firing rifles which use the MARS and lever release mechanisms. The proposed prohibition is based on concerns from the police about the potential for serious misuse and loss of life if these weapons were to fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists, since they can discharge rounds at a much faster rate than conventional rifles and are significantly more dangerous.
That is not to say there is an imminent threat that these weapons are about to be used by criminals or terrorists but, in view of the threat assessment received, the Government has a clear duty to take preventative action to protect the public by making these weapons subject to more stringent controls.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 16 March (HL6114), why a report of a receipt of a fraudulent approach which did not lead to any further action is not counted as a crime by Action Fraud.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
The counting rules for crime, including fraud, stipulate that in such cases an information report should be recorded by Action Fraud either through their online reporting tool or via their contact centre.
These reports are retained in the Know Fraud database as another form of information capable of assisting the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and UK law enforcement in determining lines of enquiry and protective messaging. The majority of such cases result from e-mails or other cyber based approaches generated in very large numbers and not specifically directed to the recipient.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 5 March (HL5646), whether the improvements to Action Fraud's IT systems will include allowing the registration as a crime of online fraud where an attempt is made to defraud but the intended victim aborts the transaction before any damage is done.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
Reports received by Action Fraud are subject to the Home Office Counting Rules for Fraud and Computer Misuse. In most cases a crime will be recorded where the victim responds to a fraudulent approach (such as a phishing email) but does not incur financial loss.
Receipt of a fraudulent approach which did not lead to any further action may be reported to Action Fraud but is not counted as a crime. It is instead treated as an information report and is used by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau to identify links between seemingly unexpected fraud attempts. This situation will remain the same when the improved reporting portal is launched.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the comprehensiveness of the data gathered by the police about online fraud and attempted online fraud.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
To fully understand the threat posed by fraud, this Government recognises the importance of having data which sets out the scale and nature of this type of criminality to then build an effective response. Action Fraud, which is overseen by City of London Police, is the national reporting centre for all frauds and cyber crimes, this is linked with the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), also overseen by CoLP. (The NFIB analyses fraud data to identify links between seemingly unconnected crimes and assess information that may support investigation).
These capabilities enable policing to gather comprehensive data from the public, through crime and information reports, and wider industry partners, including the banking and retail sectors, to then build a national fraud intelligence picture. The NFIB also collects policing outcome data from all forces to understand impact. To improve data collection, City of London Police is implementing a new I.T system within Action Fraud and NFIB, due to go-live in Spring 2018, which will enhance reporting routes and analytical capability. This will further improve our collective understanding of the fraud threat.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Microsoft Technical Support scam, whether they intend to use information acquired under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to help to reduce the level of such fraud.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
In the year to June 2016 (the latest published Action Fraud figures), there were 24,565 incidents of computer software service fraud, an increase of 2% when compared with the previous year (24,109 in year to June 2015).
The Fraud Act 2006 is clear that fraud can be committed even where no money has been lost. Computer software service fraud should be reported to Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and online crime. All fraud reports made to Action Fraud are subsequently transferred to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). The NFIB evaluates the reports to assess information available which could assist an investigation, and also to identify links between seemingly unconnected incidents and therefore build intelligence.
This Government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies have the tools they need to carry out the critical responsibilities Parliament has placed on them. One of the key aims of the Investigatory Powers Act is to ensure that investigatory powers are fit for a digital age and that crime can be investigated wherever it takes place, regardless of the method of communication.
The Investigatory Powers Act, once brought into force, will provide that communications data may be acquired for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, wherever that crime takes place, where an application for communications data meets the requirements for necessity and proportionality set out in the Act. This would, of course, include the use of the powers to investigate fraud and other related criminal offences.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Microsoft Technical Support scam, what assessment they have made of the level of such fraud and its consequences.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
In the year to June 2016 (the latest published Action Fraud figures), there were 24,565 incidents of computer software service fraud, an increase of 2% when compared with the previous year (24,109 in year to June 2015).
The Fraud Act 2006 is clear that fraud can be committed even where no money has been lost. Computer software service fraud should be reported to Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and online crime. All fraud reports made to Action Fraud are subsequently transferred to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). The NFIB evaluates the reports to assess information available which could assist an investigation, and also to identify links between seemingly unconnected incidents and therefore build intelligence.
This Government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies have the tools they need to carry out the critical responsibilities Parliament has placed on them. One of the key aims of the Investigatory Powers Act is to ensure that investigatory powers are fit for a digital age and that crime can be investigated wherever it takes place, regardless of the method of communication.
The Investigatory Powers Act, once brought into force, will provide that communications data may be acquired for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, wherever that crime takes place, where an application for communications data meets the requirements for necessity and proportionality set out in the Act. This would, of course, include the use of the powers to investigate fraud and other related criminal offences.
Asked by: Lord Lucas (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to require the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau via Action Fraud to record computer software service frauds, such as the Microsoft Technical Support scam, including instances where no money has been lost as a result of the scam.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Shadow Chief Whip (Lords)
In the year to June 2016 (the latest published Action Fraud figures), there were 24,565 incidents of computer software service fraud, an increase of 2% when compared with the previous year (24,109 in year to June 2015).
The Fraud Act 2006 is clear that fraud can be committed even where no money has been lost. Computer software service fraud should be reported to Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and online crime. All fraud reports made to Action Fraud are subsequently transferred to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). The NFIB evaluates the reports to assess information available which could assist an investigation, and also to identify links between seemingly unconnected incidents and therefore build intelligence.
This Government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies have the tools they need to carry out the critical responsibilities Parliament has placed on them. One of the key aims of the Investigatory Powers Act is to ensure that investigatory powers are fit for a digital age and that crime can be investigated wherever it takes place, regardless of the method of communication.
The Investigatory Powers Act, once brought into force, will provide that communications data may be acquired for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, wherever that crime takes place, where an application for communications data meets the requirements for necessity and proportionality set out in the Act. This would, of course, include the use of the powers to investigate fraud and other related criminal offences.