News that one police analyst, Natalie Mottram, 25, working for the UK’s Cheshire Constabulary undermined the surveillance of criminal messages by tipping off users of EncroChat reminded me of a forensic investigator who went rogue and did considerable damage within the telco that employed him, just a few years back.
In a nutshell, this guy turned his investigations into lucrative business, right under his boss’ noses. He made his money in two ways. Firstly, he was paid to look the other way in some cases. Cases would just not progress, evidence would not be found, witnesses were not interviewed, and suspects were cleared. Eventually, the people who should have faced the consequences of their actions walked away unpunished. They only needed to pay him well, and they did.
He was also paid to open bogus cases by employees who had scores to settle with their peers within the same company. Being a diabolical fiend, the investigator would smear the targets he was paid to undermine. Sometimes he was paid twice — by both his ‘client’ and by a target who wanted the harassment to end. These double payments were especially lucrative, and neither of the parties could complain anywhere.
Being a well-known sex pest, the corrupt fraud investigator also used his position to coerce female suspects into sleeping with him… or else. This came out during his disciplinary hearing, and was key to his summary dismissal. He was a vile character in every respect, but I cannot recall exactly why the company did not pursue criminal charges against him. His crimes were so severe as to deserve time in jail, just like Mottram. My guess is that pursuing a criminal prosecution would have involved a lot of uncomfortable questions, for a lot of people. Escorting him out of the building was the easier option.
In hindsight, there were many points of failure.
To begin with, this man should never have got the job of fraud investigator in the first place. Most likely, if the company had checked his background properly, there would have been something that indicated his lack of ethics. Does a person become corrupt suddenly? I doubt it. I have little idea of the investigator’s past but the way he behaved leaves me convinced his history was dubious.
Recall what the UK’s National Crime Agency said about Mottram:
As well as the crimes she has admitted, the evidence against her revealed she bought cannabis from a dealer whose phone number was saved in her mobile phone; had told [somebody] about a murder file she had seen on her boss’s desk. And she also took selfies with her work computer visible and showing a document classified as ‘Official Sensitive’ meaning it required certain handling conditions.
There is always something that reveals a person’s true character.
On the job, the corrupt investigator was grossly incompetent. He could not write a coherent report let alone explain his findings (although that might also be by design). Yet, his line managers kept him. To his credit, he was a smooth talker and he pretended to have contacts with law enforcement agencies. He said these contacts would only trust him. This should have been identified as a red flag if ever there was one! In a department that was headed by an expatriate, there was a feeling that it was important to have a local who could speak ‘the language of the police’. He was trusted to pick up the phone and speak directly to the police commander on behalf of the company.
In summary, many people in the telco dropped the ball. Too many people looked away, for far too long. His exit from the company did not deliver any form of justice. The damage had been done. The whole department was tainted by his actions. Even though there was no evidence that his behaviour was commonplace, the fact that it had gone on for that long led to questions about the integrity of the investigations team. If the person who is supposed to ferret out malodorous behaviour is also the high priest of racketeering, extortion and sexual exploitation, how is anybody expected to respect reports and recommendations from the investigations team?
There was a stinking failure in review of investigations. Too much trust and leeway had been placed in investigators. Essentially, there was nobody looking over their shoulder. Telcos have a multitude of internal investigations — procurement frauds, breaches of customer privacy by staff, conflicts of interest, back-office mischief, and scams. My usual gripe is that telcos invest in all the wrong areas and fail to invest in most of the important areas. Of course, I am biased. The staffing of investigations departments is hardly sufficient but that is no excuse. People who write reports that can curtail or end careers, and who can trigger court action need to be credible. A process of ensuring that they remain credible is not negotiable.
This story would not be complete without adding one last rotten cherry on top: as soon as the corrupt investigator was fired, he secured a job with the communications regulator within that country. He successfully styled himself as a subject matter expert, invaluable in investigations into the affairs of telcos and, to date, he continues to work there.
