Fraudsters say the funniest things

Some insurance fraud is organised and sophisticated. Other claims; not so much. Here are some of our favourite attempts by fraudsters to explain away their failure to get their story straight:

• The claimant who stormed out of the witness box, shouting “I refuse to participate in this charade any more” when asked to describe the flip-flops he was wearing at the time of the accident.
• The suspected bogus witness who, when given a warning about perjury by the judge when he gave such poor evidence, suddenly claimed that he’d bumped his head and suffered memory loss.
• The three claimants (mother and her two sons) claiming a total of £150 for travel expenses admitted that their husband/dad gave them a lift for the five mile round trip. It hadn’t cost them anything and £30 per mile was steep! In fact, the husband was the defendant. The judge called this a fraudulent claim and gave it as one of the reasons he dismissed the claims and found fraud.

• he man trying to explain his absence from photos taken at the scene, showing a safe on the back seat of the vehicle he claimed he was travelling in. His explanation was that he was sitting under the very heavy item. The reason given for the journey when the accident happened? Going to bury a dead duck.
• When the Claimant was asked to provide details of the gym he was unable to attend because of the accident, he advised that the gym was actually at his work place. When pressed further, he served pictures of an exercise mat and an ab cruncher placed in his office space.
• The motorcyclist who advised the medical expert he was now extremely nervous driving his motorcycle post-accident. However his medical records revealed that he then left the examination and crashed his motorbike whilst "showboating”.
• The two drivers who denied knowing each other but were found to be Facebook friends and when confronted by this evidence, claimed that a beautiful friendship blossomed after they swapped details at the accident scene!

Trials are not just an inevitable stage of litigation where fraud is suspected; they are a useful application of pressure by Defendants to ensure that fraudsters are found out – and of course made to pay, with a finding of fundamental dishonesty.