Category: Government Priorities

Protecting public safety: our latest action against training malpractice 

Op Resolute Update, December 2025 

An update from Pete Easterbrook, Director of Inspections and Enforcement. Pete leads the SIA’s drive against training malpractice and qualification fraud. 

Training malpractice and qualification fraud are not simply shortcuts – they have real-world public safety consequences. That’s why we continue to take decisive action under Operation RESOLUTE to protect the integrity of SIA licence-linked qualifications and ensure the public can have confidence that security operatives are properly trained and genuinely qualified. 

Coordinated nationwide action 

In October 2025, our teams conducted a series of targeted inspections across the UK, visiting 9 training centres in a single week. While standards were generally high, we found that three training centres we visited were delivering training below our expectations.  In one of the cases, we witnessed malpractice taking place. As a result, the centre is being investigated by the awarding organisation, and any further training will be scrutinised and monitored. 

In November 2025, our teams conducted a major series of targeted inspections. More than twenty officers from the SIA’s Inspections and Enforcement Directorate, working closely with our partners at Ofqual, carried out simultaneous unannounced inspections across London, Manchester, Bradford, and Liverpool. 

In a single day, we visited 8 venues: 5 approved training centres, 2 security companies, and 1 non-approved training centre. We took this targeted action in direct response to intelligence we received. It was necessary to disrupt an organised network we believe has been engaging in serious malpractice and fraud. 

The results speak for themselves. The training centres we visited are now under investigation and close scrutiny from the awarding bodies. One of these centres has been further sanctioned, meaning the awarding organisation will not authorise the release of any further qualifications until it is satisfied the quality of training can be met. 

Operation Resolute: our commitment to rooting out malpractice 

These operations are part of Operation Resolute, our comprehensive initiative to identify, pursue, and root out anyone who undermines the system. We are determined to ensure the public have confidence that SIA licence holders have been properly trained, are genuinely qualified, and are fully capable of doing the job required of them. 

We’re now receiving intelligence from a wider range of sources. As these recent operations demonstrate, we’re using that intelligence, our UK-wide resources, and those of our partners to track down individuals who falsely believe they won’t be caught. 

Since the start of 2025  

  • 19 training centres have been closed down  
  • 242 SIA licences have been suspended  

Report your concerns 

If you have concerns about the integrity of SIA licence-linked training, please report them. Every piece of intelligence helps us protect the public and support the majority of training providers who operate to good standards.   

We will continue to provide updates on our progress as appropriate.  

If you have concerns about a training provider, please do report your concerns: Find out how you report training malpractice.  

More information about the parties involved in delivering SIA licence-linked training is available from our Learn about SIA licence-linked training  page. 

Back to homepage

Significant activity to crack down on training malpractice

An update from Pete Easterbrook, interim SIA Director of Inspections and Enforcement. Pete leads our drive against training malpractice.  

We will not hesitate to act if we believe that an operative has not been trained to the standards we require as a result of training malpractice or qualification fraud. 

In the last 24 hours we have suspended the SIA licences of more than 60 people who undertook training at two separate centres in Glasgow and Manchester that were operated by the same company. This came as a result of information provided to us. 

We are continuing our enquiries. In the meantime,  the responsible awarding organisation has prevented the centre from delivering any further training. 

We will continue our work under Operation RESOLUTE, acting swiftly and decisively to root out abuse, detect and disrupt criminality, and make the private security industry a hostile environment for those who seek to exploit it. 

We will provide updates on our progress as appropriate.  

If you have concerns about a training provider, please report your concerns: Find out how you report training malpractice.  

You can find more information about the parties involved in delivering SIA licence-linked training from our Learn about SIA licence-linked training  page.  

Turning the Tide on Training Malpractice in the Private Security Industry 

Pete Easterbrook, Interim Director of Inspections and Enforcement talks about a new phase to our approach to tackle training malpractice or mismanagement.

Those working within the private security hold positions of trust and responsibility. It is essential that the public, customers and stakeholders have confidence and trust that security operatives are properly trained, qualified, and capable of keeping people, property and premises safe. A key component of ensuring this trust and confidence is assuring the validity of the qualifications that operatives receive before they can apply for an SIA licence.  The majority of providers who deliver SIA licence linked training are professionals who share our commitment to high standards, however where this is not the case, poor standards and training malpractice can, at its worst, put the public at risk.   

While we play a central role in setting the minimum standards for licence-linked training, we’re not the only players in the game.  We define the core skills and knowledge required for operatives to qualify for a licence. However, the delivery of that training is conducted by around 650 training providers who are in turn approved by six Awarding Organisations (AOs), each regulated by Ofqual (England and Wales), SQA (Scotland), CCEA (Northern Ireland), which oversees quality assurance across the sector.    

Qualifications’ regulation is a well-established model that is in use in other sectors across the UK, but having multiple organisations involved in the process doesn’t always make things straightforward.  Regardless of who is responsible for which part of the process, where a qualification leads to a licence being granted, then our role is to ensure that the individual we have granted a licence to is fit and proper – and that includes possessing the safety critical skills and knowledge to undertake their role effectively.    

In 2024, we began to focus greater attention on training malpractice, which at it’s most serious can constitute fraud – a criminal offence.  As part of this, we undertook work to improve strategic relationships with key partners such as Awarding Organisations and qualification regulators such as Ofqual.  An enhanced communications campaign resulted in an increase in the intelligence we received relating to training malpractice – essential for us to be able to take the appropriate action.  

Since April 2025, we’ve built on the foundations of this work, and we are now moving into a new phase under Operation RESOLUTE.  RESOLUTE has been designed as a high impact initiative with a strong operational focus on intelligence led, unannounced inspections to training providers, as well as a deeper collaboration with partners. 

We are realigning our resources and ensuring we leverage the considerable expertise of our people.  By way of an example, we’ve now brought specialist training integrity resources into our Inspections and Enforcement directorate.  This shift has unlocked wider investigative expertise and enabled a more proactive, intelligence-led approach to tackling training abuse.  In addition, we’ve invested in nationally accredited training to sharpen the investigative skills of our frontline teams to ensure they are equipped to tackle training malpractice head on.   

Our robust and decisive approach is already having an impact.   

Since the 1st April 2025; 

  •  we’ve increased the number of unannounced training centre visits by 120% compared to the same period last year.  Those visits have resulted in 10 training centres having their approval to deliver training withdrawn, and one centre suspended from delivering training until the Awarding Body is satisfied the appropriate standard can be met.  
  • we’ve commenced a criminal investigation in one case due to the serious nature of the offending.  As part of this investigation 17 individual SIA licences have been revoked where our enquiries have brought into question whether the training an individual has received has been up to the required standard.  
  • In July 2025 my teams conducted a series of targeted inspections across the UK, visiting 15 training centres in a single week.  Whilst standards were generally high, four training centres we visited were found to be delivering training below our expectations.  In two cases the issues were so serious the centres were sanctioned by Awarding Bodies and any further training will be scrutinised and monitored. One of these centres was further sanctioned, and the Awarding Body will not authorise the release of any further qualifications until it is satisfied the quality of training can be met 

We are about to undertake a strategic review of the licence linked qualifications, within which we will seek to further reduce opportunities for abuse of the training system.  Naturally, this will involve us taking a close look at how assessments are conducted and administered.  In the meantime we are working closely with partners, will continue our work under Operation RESOLUTE, acting swiftly and decisively to root out abuse, detect and disrupt criminality, and make the private security industry a hostile environment for those who seek to exploit it. 

We will continue to provide updates on our progress as appropriate. 

If you have concerns about a training provider, please do report your concerns: Find out how you report training malpractice. 

More information about the parties involved in delivering SIA licence-linked training is available from our Learn about SIA licence-linked training  page. 

What is spiking and what can I do about it?

This blog was written by Dr Amy Burrell, Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham. She can be contacted  on a.burrell@bham.ac.uk or via LinkedIn

What is spiking?

Spiking is the covert administration of substances (e.g., drugs, alcohol) to another person without their knowledge or consent. People often think about spiking in the context of drinks and, whilst drink spiking (i.e., adding a substance to someone’s drink) is a common way to spike someone, it is not the only way it happens. There are also reports of spiking using food (e.g., lollipops, brownies, gummies), cigarettes and/or vapes, as well as chewing gum and even via needles/injection.

What is commonly used to spike people?

Drugs such as Rohypnol, GHB, and Ketamine have been associated with spiking and incidents involving such substances do occur. However, alcohol is the most common substance used to commit spiking. This is not surprising as it is cheap and easily available, especially when in a night-time economy context.

Why do people spike others?

Spiking is a criminal offence. However, it can also be used to make someone more susceptible to being a victim of another crime. There is little research evidence about motivations but what we do know is that they can vary – for example, from sexual assault to robbery to pranking. We also know that spiking is not always followed by another offence which lends more support to the idea that some perpetrators commit spiking for “fun” or “a laugh”. Whatever the motivation, the impact of spiking can be dangerous and, of course, frightening for the victim.

How can I tell if someone has been spiked?

Symptoms of spiking can vary, depending on the substance used. Sometimes it will look like someone is just very drunk – unsurprising if the substance used to spike is often alcohol. Symptoms can, therefore, look similar to drunkenness – e.g., nausea, dizziness, being unsteady on their feet. Other signs someone might have been spiking include becoming unresponsive, behaving out of character, paranoia, and/or hallucinations.

What should I do immediately/first if I think someone has been spiked?

First and foremost, focus on safety. Seek medical attention if necessary. Also, make the venue aware as well as SIA colleagues working nearby. It is not always easy to establish where spiking has taken place so making everyone aware of an incident is helpful. Listen to the person who is reporting they have been spiked – and their friends – as this will help you identify what will help them calm down/feel reassured/what help they need.

How do I help someone who has been spiked?

Remember that the person might not be aware of what is happening. They might be very frightened and/or distressed. It is important to try and find the person’s friends as, hopefully, this will help you understand what has happened. In particular, it will help you establish where they have been and if their behaviour seems out of character for them. One useful tip is to look at the group and the context – whilst it might be very difficult to determine if someone has been spiked if it is 4am and everyone is drunk, there are other times where it should be much clearer. For example, if it is 10pm and one person seems completely out of it, their friends are nearby, (more) sober, and telling you their friend is behaving oddly then this is a strong indicator of spiking. Either way, if in doubt, work on the basis it could be spiking and take the appropriate action.

How do I report a spiking incident?

Victims can be worried about reporting spiking as they might be frightened or feel like they won’t be believed. I would encourage people to report if they feel able to as this helps us to build up a picture of spiking and the more we know, the more effectively we can respond. Police UK have a website on spiking which includes links to reporting spiking incidents. If the victim would prefer not to contact the police, they can still report what has happened to them – for example, at Stamp Out Spiking and The Egalitarian.

What do I do if I want to find out more?

The Security Industry Authority can signpost you to training that is available to you. For example, the Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) training is offered to SIA licence holders via the Safer Business Network. This offers you a good opportunity for supplementary training as an extra to your regular refresher SIA training.

There are also many charitable organisations who can offer help and support around spiking. They often have free resources available and/or options for reporting incidents. For example:

Improving understanding of public trust and confidence in private security 

Michelle Russell, Chief Executive, Security Industry Authority 

The Security Industry Authority’s core purpose is protecting the public through effectively regulating the private security industry. As we mark 20 years since the start of our licensing regime, we want to make sure that the industry and its regulation is keeping pace with public expectations. It’s important that people can have trust and confidence in licence holders, the wider industry, and us as a regulator.

Research shows there are high levels of trust and confidence

We commissioned BMG to carry out research to help us to understand public perceptions of the industry, its regulation and private security careers. The overall results from nationally representative surveys of 2,600 UK adults in 2022 and 2023, and further exploration of key themes in focus groups, present a solid picture to build on.

It’s encouraging that most people trust security operatives, are confident that they do the right thing and carry out their duties competently. The public recognise the important role security operatives do. SIA licence holders can feel proud that most people feel safer due to their presence in settings like music concerts, sporting events, banks, hospitals, nighttime venues and retail premises.

There are high levels of consistency between the 2022 and 2023 results. This indicates that these findings are not a ‘one-off’. However, it also means that it will likely take time to change some of the more negative perceptions and stereotypes that some of the public hold about the security operatives they come across.

Personal encounters have a significant influence on views 

It is not unexpected that attitudes and personal experiences play a strong role in driving levels of trust. Those with a positive recent personal experience with a security operative were much more likely to have greater levels of trust and confidence overall in private security.

We set the entry level requirements for training content and standards of conduct required to get and keep a licence. The research findings show that operatives who display positive, customer-focused traits help to drive trust. People said they wanted the security staff they meet to be more professional, reliable and helpful. This highlights how important it is for individuals to take responsibility for their conduct and behaviour once they have a licence, putting their communication and conflict resolution skills into practice.

Employers also have a part to play, as they take responsibility for on the job training suitable for the role their employees are deployed to. Employers can encourage recruitment for desired skills and traits, and promote positive values.

Security businesses and leaders also have an important role – both in driving long-term improvements to standards, and in helping to change public perceptions. I’d like to recognise the impact of initiatives which are good examples of this such as the British Security Industry Association (BSIA)’s ‘People, Property, Places: Professionally Protected’ campaign and the work of the industry-led Skills Board which is made up of leaders from security businesses both small and large.

Our regulation also has a part to play in building trust

Though personal experience is a stronger driver, as the regulator we also play our part in building trust and confidence by setting requirements and standards, and acting swiftly against those who fall short of them. Whether that’s providing formal advice, or suspending or revoking licences. In the most serious cases, we will prosecute illegal activity that risks public safety, the integrity of the licensing regime or undermines the work of those that do comply with the rules.

Members of the public that took part in focus groups were mostly positive about regulation and felt reassured by knowing the industry is regulated. However, it is clear there is more that we can do to explain what licensing means and how SIA licence holders support public safety, given that 3 in 10 survey respondents were aware of us and our role. We’re acting on this and have built improving public understanding into our communications strategy for the next few years.

The focus group conversations also revealed that routine independent licensing checks will help to drive up trust. We have increased our inspection footprint and visibility across the UK over the last few years to help detect issues early and deter wrongdoing. We will continue to act against individuals and companies who put the public at risk.

Together we can change perceptions about careers

It is good news that 7 in 10 people agree that private security is a career to be proud of. However, most of the survey respondents saw working in security as a good secondary job, rather than a first-choice career. 

The SIA is already working in partnership with the industry to change perceptions so that more people can see private security as a role for them. Employers are responsible for attracting and retaining their staff. We act and use our voice where practices compromise public safety, including working with HMRC to address ‘cash in hand’ practices which are often linked to poor standards.  

We are also pleased to support the specialist work of bodies such as the Security Institute, The International Professional Security Association (IPSA) and Security Commonwealth, and industry-led initiatives such as the Private Security Industry Apprenticeship Trailblazer Group, which work to open pathways into security and formalise frameworks for further developing skills and expertise, post entry level. 

Long-term improvements to working conditions must continue to be driven by the industry. Employers are responsible for ensuring people are paid fairly and well for what they do and the skills they have, treated respectfully in the workplace and invested in with opportunities to develop and progress. Buyers also have a role to play in not letting pricing compromise public safety and quality. 

This is just a flavour of some of the key findings and learnings from the full research document. We have used the results to inform our own strategy. I encourage those working in the private security industry, those in positions of leadership and influence in security businesses, and employers, to reflect on and use these insights to inform your own activities. 

Read the report in full

Minister of State for Safeguarding out on inspection with our compliance team in the City of London 

On Tuesday 12 September Sarah Dines, Minister of State for Safeguarding, accompanied our compliance team members and City of London Police on an inspection across six locations in the square mile. 

The Minister, Sarah Dines, and our Chair, Heather Baily met and spoke with frontline security operatives, including door supervisors and security guards. The Minister was keen to understand the role and the experiences of licence holders as well as speak with them about public safety. 

Our Investigations Officer, Kirsty Tagg shared with the Minister our ongoing work to tackle violence against women and girls in partnership with local boroughs and the police.  She also highlighted the vital training that operatives receive on recognising indicators of abuse and their duty of care to protect vulnerable people. 

The visits provided an opportunity for the security operatives to speak with the Minister and our Chair, and an opportunity for the Minister to observe our role in enforcing standards within the private security industry. 

The visits allowed us to meet security operatives with a wide range of experience of working in the private security industry. A couple of the operatives had been in role for over ten years, with one holding 18 years of service at the same venue. We also met with an operative who had only just recently received their first licence. 

One of the head door supervisors detailed that they had recently turned away a security operative, with what they thought may have been a fake licence.  

Using ultraviolet light, they had been unable to detect a lack of security features that should have been present on the individual’s licence card.  

We discussed the issue of counterfeited licences with the Minister and explained the ways in which we are tackling this issue by encouraging companies to undertake checks. 

The inspection was completed with a short debrief at the end of the night. 

It was a valuable exercise to introduce the Minister to the work we do out in the field, learn about the experiences of the SIA licence holders, and discuss some of the challenges we can encounter in our work.   

Our thanks go to Sarah Dines, her team, the City of London Police and to all who took part for their continued commitment to working with us. 

Public Protection is everyone’s responsibility!

The SIA’s recent update submitted to the Inquiry on 16 January, has been published on the Manchester Arena Inquiry website and is now also available here on GOV.UK.

In a blog published today, Paul Fullwood SIA Director of Inspections & Enforcement and Strategic Lead for the Manchester Arena Inquiry (MAI) gives an update on the SIA’s work on the two monitored recommendations made by the Inquiry. He also outlines the actions and improvements undertaken by the SIA to strengthen public safety since the attack at the Manchester Arena in 2017.

The Manchester Arena Inquiry (MAI) has been a sobering experience for us all. The inquiry has provided significant learning for the public and various agencies as well as an examination of the role of the regulated Private Security sector.

On Monday 19th December 2022, the Government announced details for the Protect Duty, now to be known as ‘Martyn’s Law’ in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was killed alongside 21 others in the Manchester Arena Terrorist Attack in 2017.

Further to Martyn’s Law, Volume One of the Inquiry’s report contained two monitored recommendations specifically for the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office.

I thought it would be helpful to explain the SIA’s work so far on the Inquiry’s Monitored Recommendations 7 (MR7 – extend in-house licensing) and 8 (MR8 – introduction of business licensing).

Over the last 18 months we have been working closely with the Home Office to consider possible options to address these recommendations.

From the perspective of the SIA, our professional assessment is that despite the best efforts of many, we have gaps in our existing regulatory powers which the proposals would seek to address. We have sought to address this in support of both public protection and working in partnership to raise standards across the private security industry.

Our proposals go further than the recommendations made by the MAI, and we have included:

  1. Individual SIA licensing for in-house security should be extended to both operators of CCTV/public surveillance and in-house security guards; and
  2. The licensing of private security contractors and labour providers be introduced.

We have been working with members of the private security industry & Home Office to test out our thinking, our own professional knowledge and independent research to ensure we have an evidence base to assist with any future decision making.

We have made our proposals on the basis that:

  •  they will support public protection and public safety,
  • they have the broad support of the private security operatives and businesses we have engaged with,
  • they will not result in a disproportionate regulatory burden with sensible measures proposed, including exemptions, exceptions, and thresholds.

There is often a misassumption that we (SIA) can introduce these changes immediately; we can’t!  We operate within the powers given to us under the Private Security Industry Act. Any changes to this legislation require the agreement of the Home Office, Ministers, and Parliament. The matter is now with Home Office officials, and ultimately Ministers for consideration and decision on whether to accept the proposals or not. We await to hear the outcome.

Alongside the introduction of ‘Martyn’s Law’ we feel these proposals will bolster public safety by further professionalising the private security industry and address several shortfalls that we know many professionals would like addressed.

The SIA submitted formal detailed proposals of both MR 7 and MR8 to the Home Office in November 2022.

As private security is a devolved matter, the SIA regulates the private security industry in Scotland and Northern Ireland on behalf of the governments in those nations. We have continued to keep those authorities updated as well.

In the meantime, we have also been developing many other areas that we can change within the SIA to further support public protection:

  • We have revised our Compliance, Enforcement & Supervision Strategy with our vision to be far more visible and proactive across the private security industry. We have increased our Inspection & Enforcement Resources (at no increase of the license fee) from 50 plus operatives to over 100 operatives (Intelligence, Inspections and Criminal Investigation) who are all being upskilled to national investigative & intelligence standards (PIP/IPP).
  • We have over 400,000 SIA licensed operatives across the UK, so readers will understand why our inspections/operations are targeted & intelligence led based on threat, risk, and harm, that said there is a real willingness to increase our visibility, make our presence felt and engage better with all parts of private security industry.
  • Year to date we have undertaken 6,000 individual licence checks, more than a 200% increase on the previous year. We have conducted inspection visits to 915 separate sites and checked operatives from 830 separate security providers. We have opened 880 compliance investigation cases based on intelligence and concern reports.  We have detected nearly 100 individual offences relating to unlicensed operatives and other PSIA 2001 offences.
  • We continue to work closely with UK Police/local policing, HMRC, UK Law Enforcement, Local Authority & key stakeholders across the UK.
  • We have also submitted to the Home Office several business cases to improve our current PSIA powers (alongside MR7 & MR8) which will assist with information sharing, investigative activity, and money laundering legislation in support of our regulatory responsibility.
  • We have made 100 unannounced visits to training providers and generated 103 action plans, which contain an average of 4 improvement points.  These are all followed up with the relevant awarding organisation.
  • We continue to improve the Approved Contractor Scheme recognising the link  between our proposals to the Home Office for ‘Inhouse & Business Licensing’.

We recognise that we have some brilliant people and organisations operating across the private security industry who are doing their very best for the public, their teams, and people they serve. This is why we need to keep moving forward, we can’t be complacent and why public protection and raising standards is all our responsibility if we want to prevent further tragedies.

Paul Fullwood – Director – Inspections & Enforcement (SIA Strategic lead for Manchester Arena Inquiry).

Suggested links:

Manchester Arena Inquiry official website: Manchester Arena Inquiry

MAI Volume 1: Volume 1 Report – Manchester Arena Inquiry

Protect Duty announcement: Martyn’s Law to ensure stronger protections against terrorism in public places – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Protect Duty Factsheet: Martyn’s Law Factsheet  – Home Office in the media (blog.gov.uk)

The Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)

This month, one of our Criminal Investigations Managers, Nathan Salmon explains how the SIA uses the (Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) to recover the profits made from offending within the private security industry.

Our blog aims to discuss developments in the private security industry and to provide further insight and opinion on our work. We look forward to having an on-going discussion with you; share your comments and opinions.

__________

Over the last 12 years, the SIA has been investigating and prosecuting anyone who repeatedly shows that they do not care about being licensed or working within the law. Our Partnerships and Interventions department does this by encouraging those working in the private security industry to stay within the law (the Private Security Industry Act). You can find out more about our enforcement activity on our website.

The SIA licence is a way to safeguard the industry and general public, and it is our responsibility to make sure that only ‘fit and proper’ people work in the industry. Those who ignore us and disregard the importance of licensing could be barred from operating in private security and prosecuted.

We do not always prosecute but investigate and consider whether there are public safety risks or if we need to protect the integrity of the private security industry or our licensing system.

The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and repeat offenders

In recent years, we noted that some security companies were being investigated repeatedly. We had to do something because we didn’t want businesses treating court fines as a type of tax where the level of profit for working outside the law is worth the potential penalties any judge or court may give.

In 2015, the government amended POCA to include to regulatory bodies like us and we applied to take advantage of these powers. POCA is a law that means any money made from criminal activity can be recovered. It is also used by the likes of local authorities, HMRC and the Police to name a few.

We started using POCA in November 2015 to financially investigate companies and individuals who make a profit from criminal activity in the private security industry. Since then, we have employed financial investigators. They are accredited to use POCA to investigate and confiscate assets.

A recent example of our use of POCA is the case of Billy Jones, a security director who continued to work despite having had his Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence revoked. He was ordered to pay £300,000 at Cardiff Crown Court, in April 2019. This kind of conviction removes the benefit of working outside the law in the private security industry.

How does the SIA use POCA?

Our Criminal Investigations Team, is part of our Partnerships and Interventions department and is responsible for the SIA’s criminal investigations. This includes Accredited Financial Investigators (AFIs) who are able to legally present financial information in court. AFI’s are unique and very important because they have the power to ask financial institutions for information and use this to build a clear picture of someone’s financial status.

There are currently two main ways that our AFI’s can use POCA:

  1. Restraining assets
    AFI’s can apply to the court to restrain the assets of people under financial investigation. This makes sure that the money or assets of anyone we are prosecuting cannot be sold or dissipated before a court case ends. For example, for someone who is being investigated, the amount they can withdraw from their bank account can be restricted and their assets frozen.
  2. Confiscating assets
    Once convicted, a court can order a person to pay an amount of money based on how much they made through criminal activity. If they fail to pay this money, they could end up in prison and when released they would still need to pay this amount. In some cases, life-changing amounts of money can be confiscated by the courts. How POCA figures are calculated is shaped by case law, meaning specific cases determine how the calculations should be applied. We’re really pleased to have contributed to this and case law specific to the security industry exists.

During POCA proceedings, the people we’re investigating may see their lifestyle change. Due to current case law and depending on the situation, how much we confiscate may be the entire value of a security contract and not just the profit. This is because the turnover from a security contract may be a significant figure, a business or person might have to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds. Selling assets like houses, cars or investments, to pay back the proceeds of their crime may be required.

If you’re wondering where this money goes, most of it returns to the Treasury. A proportion is allocated to the investigating organisation, which we can use to fund future financial investigations. In practice, we get no more than 34%. The money can also be allocated towards good causes, and we are exploring opportunities that will benefit the private security industry.

What will the SIA do with POCA in the future?

Over the next few months, we want financial investigations to become increasingly a core part of the way we prosecute at the SIA. This is really important because it is how we can guarantee that criminal profits are not reinvested, into “phoenix” companies that are essentially the same companies with a different name that have been set up after a criminal conviction. Our ability to use POCA should act as a warning to businesses seeking to operate outside private security regulations – you risk not only your business, but potentially your personal assets as well.

We are making really good progress and the volume of criminal cases under consideration has never been higher. Our success with POCA strengthens our regulation of the private security and we will continue to work with Regional Asset Recovery Teams and Police partners so that those who want to profit from illegal and poor business practice are removed from the private security industry.

How we are tackling identity theft

In the last months, two of our prosecutions cases have highlighted how we have tackled the fraudulent behaviour of some licence holders and the challenges we face.

This month, our Director of Partnerships and Interventions, Dave Humphries, discusses our counter fraud initiatives and the steps we took in these cases.

Our blog aims to discuss developments in the private security industry and to provide further insight and opinion about our work. We look forward to having an on-going discussion with you; please share your comments and opinions.

__________

Most licensing systems are based on a set of standards and for us at the SIA our system is designed to ensure only appropriate people are given the licence to operate. This involves a number of checks to prove identity that people have the relevant qualifications, checks on criminality and verifying that a person has the right to work in the United Kingdom. Most applicants provide the information we need to make a considered decision.

But what happens when someone knows they will not qualify for a licence, but is determined to get one?  They may test the robustness of our checks and they may submit false documents to do so. We are constantly alert and we do all we can do to address specific threats.

One particular type of fraud that we face is identity theft.  It is not the only category of fraud we have come across, but it was a feature in two recent cases.

These two recent investigations have involved fraudsters stealing the identities of others, but being prosecuted by the SIA for their actions. In both cases, the fraud involved not only an attempt to bypass our online licensing system, but the two individuals also tried to get around the requirement of proving their identity by taking on the full identity of another, to get an SIA licence.

The first fraudster was Moses Oshunkoya who knew the person whose identity he targeted.  He used their personal information to the point that he was able to gain a passport under this new identity.  Using this false identity Oshunkoya got as far as fraudulently gaining an SIA licence.  Nonetheless, our investigation of him resulted in a criminal prosecution.

The second case was Kazeem Oladimeji who was more contrived in his approach. He sought out a former SIA licence holder no longer working within the industry.  He adopted that identity by purchasing a fraudulent passport in the victim’s name. He changed the licence holder’s address, enabling Oladimeji to replace an SIA licence.  Again, the outcome was a successful criminal prosecution.

Both examples show the real threat posed by identity theft.  In both cases, the victims who had their identity stolen contacted us. Once we were aware, we investigated and prosecuted the offenders to ensure their fraudulent activity was brought to an end.

What are we doing to combat such activity?

Thankfully, processing changes in recent years have and will make future cases like this less likely.  For example, we introduced personal online accounts which are password protected. This reduces the ability for fraudsters to engage with us without having access to the online accounts.

We have also made improvements to the way we verify documents. We have improved technology to better identify fraudulent identity documents.  When we do find instances of fraud, we take robust action with our enforcement partners to ensure such documents are taken out of circulation.  Finally, as these two cases highlight, we prosecute the fraudsters.

As the regulator of the private security industry, we play an important role in dealing with identify fraud and together with our partners, we take robust action to tackle such criminality.

Those working in the private security industry can support this by being our eyes and ears and reporting any fraud that they come across.  As with other types of criminality within the security industry; if you suspect fraud please report online or contact Crimestoppers.  Specific information and how the fraud was identified will enable us to take positive action.

The Review of the SIA Published by the Home Office – What is to Come

This month our chief executive talks about the Home Office’s review of the SIA. He discusses the important role the private security industry plays in public safety.

This blog exists to discuss developments in the private security industry and to provide further insight and opinion on our work. Please share your comments and opinions and engage in an on-going discussion with us.

 __________

On the 7th June the Home Office published the tailored review (formerly known as a triennial review) for the SIA. You can find it here.

For a number of reasons the review has been a long time coming. But now it is here, we welcome its publication and the important contribution the private security industry has made to its recommendations.

The private security industry is a thriving sector covering a range of services, many of which have a direct bearing on public safety. We are all used to seeing private security operatives in our everyday lives in shopping centres, pubs, leisure facilities, industrial settings and at events.

The review recognises the vital role the private security industry plays in public protection and national security. It also affirms that there is a clear need for regulation in the industry. The review acknowledges the role of the SIA in raising standards and our contribution to safeguarding, public protection and national security.

Many of the recommendations of this review reflect the SIA’s published priorities, some of which we are already delivering successfully. For example, we continue to focus on further reducing violence and criminality. As part our drive to improve standards and strengthen the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) we have recently completed a comprehensive review of the ACS. The outcomes of this review will be implemented in the spring of 2019.

Going forward we will be reviewing the qualifications and training of those working in the industry to further improve knowledge and skills to facilitate even more effective protection of the public.

The heightened security threats from terrorism in recent years have served to bring a sharper focus on the role that private security can play and whether its capabilities are being used by the state to the fullest potential.

We have been facilitating greater collaboration between the counter terrorism (CT) law enforcement community and the large numbers of security operatives in areas such as door supervision, guarding and CCTV. We are also exploring with the CT community how the private security industry can be better equipped with knowledge and skills to reduce the threat to the public from a terrorist attack.

A key part of our plan remains the delivery of excellent services at the lowest possible cost. We strive to keep fees for those we regulate as low as possible and have reduced our costs by 27% since 2010. Further efficiencies have enabled us to keep the licence fee at £220 over the last six years, despite costs rising with inflation. We have recently moved to a joint Government Hub and will continue to seek efficiencies. We are currently working with the Home Office to review fee levels.

We are aligned with the review in continuing to take an even more risk-based approach to regulation with a sharper focus on non-compliant individuals and businesses, placing less of a regulatory burden where standards have been met or exceeded.

We will work with the Home Office and Devolved Administrations to implement all parts of this review that the Government wishes to take forward. We also stand ready to take on any additional areas of regulation, should the Government ask us to do so.

Ultimately our work is dependent on partnership not just with the police and other public bodies, but with the industry itself. We seek, and continue to benefit from, the support and cooperation of those working in the private security industry and our many partners to provide effective regulation. We are grateful for that support and cooperation.

As we look to the future we look forward to continuing to work with the private security industry and our partners to deliver high quality regulation and public protection.