Corporate crime = high risk

Most people think solving crime nowadays is a job for a super hero, someone with super-human strength and magical powers. But Dwight Andrews has a plan to change the thinking of society when it comes to dealing with crime, especially crimes committed by the intellectual criminal, the mastermind with more qualifications than the law enforcement team trying to catch him. This type of mission impossible scenario is just the thing to excite Andrews. He started QM Caribbean Ltd in 2000, a company that handles, among other things, security risk management. People used to be very nonchalant about security, they bought surveillance cameras because it was the “thing” to do, said Andrews, and this has not helped in preventing crime. “It is unfortunate, the situation today, because the red flag has been there for years,” said Andrews of the  crime problem.

Being one of the only certified fraud specialist in the Caribbean, Andrews felt his expertise could make a difference and formed a team of specialists with varying backgrounds in law enforcement. His main focus has been on risk consultancy, an area Andrews feels has been neglected by local companies. He said companies have, for a long time, only used a simplistic approach to crime solving and detection and this can eventually lead to their downfall. “This simplistic approach is reluctance on the part of those in charge (the companies) to accept the responsibility for some of the crimes we have now,” said Andrews. But an increase in corporate crime has spurred companies to take action, and that’s where professionals like Andrews comes in. But this sudden awareness comes at a high price for many companies, since they only realise they have a problem when crime affects profitability and reputation. That’s a common, dangerous mistake, said Andrews. “If we can accept that the whole world is intertwined and connected through communication, then you are supposed to anticipate that the deviant members of society are going to pick up modern ways to commit any type of crime, whether it is fraud or larceny,” said Andrews.

The criminal element no longer climbs through windows or steals cash from a hidden tin in someone’s dresser; he goes into your bank account and transfers your money to his own, swiftly and efficiently, added Andrews. Companies turning a blind eye to this are stuck in a myopic way of thinking, he added. Concentrating heavily on risk consulting, Andrews also offers security merchandising and technological support for companies. Andrews has covered every spectrum of a company’s security needs: detection, prevention, and solution through physical, digital and intellectual means. Apart from being a Certified Fraud Specialist, Andrews also has 15 years experience in the field of security and law enforcement. He has worked at Republic Bank, MTS and Hilton Trinidad. He also holds a post graduate diploma in Public Administration, a Bsc in Law Enforcement and an Associate of Arts Degree in Criminal Justice.

This, Andrews said, is the sole difference between our existing law enforcement and the law enforcement the country really needs. “Many of those working in law enforcement today did not study this. They are not working in their field of study and that makes a difference,” said Andrews. The typical security company is not his forte. While he acknowledges that guard dogs, hand-cuffs and security cameras are important, he believes that to prevent crime and solve it, education and the ability to analyse and problem solve is more vital. “The fact that we feel we can solve problems with that type of security alone represents the lack of knowledge of society we have about protecting ourselves,” said Andrews.

Drawing reference to the Y2K scare building up to 2000, Andrews said this type of detailed analysis and recognition needs to be enforced in local security and safety measures. “During Y2K, we knew a risk existed and things were put in place in anticipation of a disaster,” said Andrews. Grinning mischievously, Andrews said people tend to look at security as the new “sexy topic”, without really considering what it entails. And this lack of judgement is something he hopes to remedy. “My approaches do not include trial and error. I believe we can anticipate security breaches and we can analyse what is in front of us,” said Andrews. As far as he is concerned, data can allow a professional to draw logical, sometimes improbable conclusions. Com-panies cannot always recognise a security risk, said Andrews. “A lot of them are not structured to really measure what they are losing from their bottom line as a result of losses due to fraud and misappropriation,” said Andrews. To illustrate his point, Andrews said if a company catches five people committing fraud, they immediately believe they have a problem. But, he added that fraud can go on for years without any detection because companies ignore the signs or look at the wrong type of evidence. “If, for instance, if you have stock of $100,000 and that stock when sold is supposed to make you $250,000 and your $100,000 stock is only showing revenues of $180,000. This type of information is more relevant than whether or not you caught people,” said Andrews. Why? “Because they may have made the $250,000 in the first place and lost it through misappropriation,” said Andrews. Another reason fraud and misappropriation thrive is the fact everyone knows each other. Andrews feels there is a reluctance to point a finger at people and pass judgement on them, especially when you work with them.