Tweet
Hey all. Its been a while I know.
This is one that is just starting to warm up - could turn out to be totally innocent, but the warning signs are there.
Suspected Fraudster (SF) calls us up and tell us that while he was bathing his young son at the hospital, he took off his rolex - valued at approx $15,000. He then forgot about this, and when he went back to look for it, someone had taken it.
Now our policy limits watches/jewellery to $2500.00 unless you supply a valuation and pay an additional premium (fairly standard). This watch is not on his policy (along with his other valuables). SF is not happy and kicks up a huge stink, and ends up speaking to my manager. Manager finally gets him to accept that he never told us about the watch and the limit applies, and SF goes to find a photo of the watch.
SF then sends in the photo of him wearing the watch with his arm around his son. By chance the claim comes across my desk, and as I am wont to do, I pull up the metadata.
Me: (thinking) hmmm, ok, this photo was taken on Saturday. Didn't he lose the watch almost two months ago.
So I pull the GPS data (yes we can do this if you dont change your settings)
Me: Hmm, ok, so this photo was taken at his new address, which they didn't move into until after the date of loss. Curious...
I then check a few other details...like the version of iOS used to generate the image. This software wasn't even available until after the date of loss. Not looking good for Mr SF at this stage.
So I call Mr SF. I run through a series of questions about the device used, when it was taken etc. (Note I made a boo boo by not getting him to confirm the contents of the picture.) When I then ask him about the date data, he says he sent us in the wrong picture of him with a difference watch, and would instead send in the right one of him at their previous residence, with his arm up on the doorframe. I thank him for his cooperation and await the image.
Almost 2 weeks later Image #2 comes in. This image is instead of his (much younger looking) son running across a field with him in the background. The photo was sent without the Metadata included - but appears to be taken on a difference device (filename conventions are great). A quick visual compairison suggests that the watches in both photos are the same. This is then sent to our Jewellery specialists who confirm it appears to be (claimed watch) and not (cheaper watch) that he was saying that image #1 was of.
Time to call in the investigators.
This is one that is just starting to warm up - could turn out to be totally innocent, but the warning signs are there.
Suspected Fraudster (SF) calls us up and tell us that while he was bathing his young son at the hospital, he took off his rolex - valued at approx $15,000. He then forgot about this, and when he went back to look for it, someone had taken it.
Now our policy limits watches/jewellery to $2500.00 unless you supply a valuation and pay an additional premium (fairly standard). This watch is not on his policy (along with his other valuables). SF is not happy and kicks up a huge stink, and ends up speaking to my manager. Manager finally gets him to accept that he never told us about the watch and the limit applies, and SF goes to find a photo of the watch.
SF then sends in the photo of him wearing the watch with his arm around his son. By chance the claim comes across my desk, and as I am wont to do, I pull up the metadata.
Me: (thinking) hmmm, ok, this photo was taken on Saturday. Didn't he lose the watch almost two months ago.
So I pull the GPS data (yes we can do this if you dont change your settings)
Me: Hmm, ok, so this photo was taken at his new address, which they didn't move into until after the date of loss. Curious...
I then check a few other details...like the version of iOS used to generate the image. This software wasn't even available until after the date of loss. Not looking good for Mr SF at this stage.
So I call Mr SF. I run through a series of questions about the device used, when it was taken etc. (Note I made a boo boo by not getting him to confirm the contents of the picture.) When I then ask him about the date data, he says he sent us in the wrong picture of him with a difference watch, and would instead send in the right one of him at their previous residence, with his arm up on the doorframe. I thank him for his cooperation and await the image.
Almost 2 weeks later Image #2 comes in. This image is instead of his (much younger looking) son running across a field with him in the background. The photo was sent without the Metadata included - but appears to be taken on a difference device (filename conventions are great). A quick visual compairison suggests that the watches in both photos are the same. This is then sent to our Jewellery specialists who confirm it appears to be (claimed watch) and not (cheaper watch) that he was saying that image #1 was of.
Time to call in the investigators.
Comment