Reference Library – Forum Blogs
I’ve been following a new channel and it occurred to me that this may be breaking some ethical rules. These two guys are posting cases on YouTube. Its funny, but I’m wondering if they should be allowed to do it.
You guys let me know your thoughts.
On 11 August 2017, at Bristol Magistrates Court, we prosecuted Zakir Mohammed Zillul for attempting to claim 1673 in compensation for alleged lost travel documents. In August 2016, Zillul submitted an application to the SIA for a Door Supervision Licence. In support of this application, and to verify his identity, he sent his passport to us. On Friday 16 September 2016, Zillul contacted us say that he was due to travel abroad on 21 September and needed his passport to be returned as soon as possible. We returned Zillul s passport via Royal Mail Special Delivery on 20 September to arrive by 1 pm the next day.
However, due to a delay by Royal Mail, the passport was not delivered on 21 September. Zillul claimed that as a result of the late return of his passport he could not travel as he had arranged. On 26 September 2016, Zillul contacted us to make a claim for 1673, which was the cost of his apparent flights. We agreed to consider a compensation or reimbursement claim if Zillul could produce evidence of the missed flights, including proof of payment. This would be reviewed alongside the circumstances of the return of Zillul s passport.
In October 2016, following a successful application, Zillul was issued with a Door Supervisor licence. Zillul emailed us in October 2016 with evidence of the cost of the travel, and a document purporting to be an itinerary/invoice from a travel agent showing the alleged cost of the flights. In addition, he provided evidence to us, showing cash withdrawals from his bank account which he claimed were made to pay for the holiday. We believed that the documentation provided was false, so an investigation was carried out by their Criminal Investigation Team. They discovered that Zillul had not made any such travel booking.
Instead he had asked a travel agent to produce an invoice and itinerary. He used the excuse that he needed to make a claim from his travel insurance company, but had lost the relevant paperwork. When interviewed, Zillul said that a cousin was responsible for making the claim for compensation in his name. He claimed that this cousin had access and online control of Zillul s bank account and email, and implied that his cousin was corresponding to us in his name. Zillul added that his cousin was involved in a relationship with the travel agent who had provided the alleged invoice.
The travel agent denied this, and stated that she did not know the person named as Zillul s cousin. She did, however, admit to knowing Zillul, and to falsely producing an invoice itinerary for what she thought was a claim against Zillul s travel insurance. The travel agent confirmed that no actual travel booking was made by Zillul. Despite numerous attempts made by our investigators to identify Zillul s cousin, he was not traced, nor did he make himself available for interview. Zillul pleaded guilty to attempted fraud by false representation, and to having in his possession an article for use in fraud (the email purporting to be from the travel agent to support his claim for compensation).
The Court sentenced Zillul to 210 hours of unpaid community service, to be completed within a 12 months. Zillul was also ordered to pay 2046.30 prosecution costs and an 85 victim surcharge. Nathan Salmon, SIA Criminal Investigation Manager, said;
Zillul fraudulently tried to obtain compensation of 1673.00 from the SIA, when he clearly had no right to do so, He devised an elaborate plan involving the production and presentation of false documentary evidence to support his claim, using the misguided assistance of another person to facilitate the crime. The SIA robustly regulates the security industry and will seek to prosecute those individuals who choose to commit criminal offences – either in their individual licence application, or when they are working as a licensed security operative .
- *The details of the role that Limited Risk played in relation to Quinton were pursued by the Insolvency Service.
- The Security Industry Authority is the organisation responsible for regulating the private security industry in the United Kingdom, reporting to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The SIA’s main duties are: the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities; and managing the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme.
- For further information about the Security Industry Authority or to sign up for email updates visit www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk.
They also claim to help you possibly secure work. What do yous think my chances are of securing full time work and do you recommend esa or any other companies to do the course with. Is there any mso company’s who are good for new starters.
I don’t have a armed forces background .
More: Mso courses