A Maltese boxer received €21,465 from a pension for the visually impaired despite being engaged in the sport and also providing private security services – and when the authorities did eventually find out, they did not seek to recover the money, the National Audit Office (NAO) has reported.
In a report presented to parliament yesterday, the auditor gave several examples of benefit fraud (another, reported yesterday, being a Gozitan trader who received benefits of €76,000 while conducting business deals of €3.2m)
In the boxer’s case, the audit office said this man had been a boxer of considerable local renown since 2007, while simultaneously receiving a total of €21,465 in relation to the Pension for the Visually Impaired.
The benefit fraud unit had acquired flyers that advertised the tournaments in which the beneficiary had taken part. Moreover the unit found that the beneficiary owned a boxing club, which he advertised on Facebook. The unit also had photographic evidence of the claimant providing security-related services at a private establishment.
The evidence was forwarded to the Department of Social Security (DSS) on October 19, 2011.
Feedback from the department January 23, 2012, was scant and inconclusive, simply stating that,“DSS to investigate further.”
Subsequent to this, the benefit fraud unit never received any other form of communication or feedback.
When the audit office contacted the department, it was told that the Management Committee’s decision was to refer the case to a medical board. The relevant medical board was convened on May 22, 2012, and stated that: , “...As attached leaflets show [reference is here presumably made to the documentary evidence provided by BFID], he is still actively involved in boxing and related work. Therefore the Board does not find applicants claim justified.”
The Pension for the Visually Impaired was stopped in June 2012, with no overpayment (process) created. Social Assistance and Energy Benefits were also stopped in May and August 2012, respectively. Once again, no overpayment was created in this regard.
The audit office said it could not understand the enforcement measures, as the level of proof established in this case could allow it to claw back the benefits paid to earlier dates than those in fact established.
“As a bare minimum, NAO opines that DSS could have in fact have recovered social benefits paid since October 2011, which is the date of the BFID investigation; however, the evidence provided by the benefit fraud unit, and corroborated by the established medical board, could have sufficed for further recovery of undue benefits.”
The beneficiary then applied for Unemployment Assistance benefit in October 2012. The Department of Social Services undertook basic vetting. Checks, carried out through the Employment and Training Corporation confirmed his unemployed status, while checks carried out through the Commerce Department confirmed that the claimant was not in possession of any trade licence. It is in this context he was awarded the Unemployment Assistance due.
The audit office said it was of the view, given the evident high risk associated with this beneficiary, that the Department for Social Security should have flagged such developments to the benefit fraud unit, which, in turn, could have undertaken more in-depth vetting of the beneficiary.