A few years ago, I lodged a report with the Commercial Affairs Department jointly with another person. We made a complaint against a person who was alleged to be cheating the public by offering forex training courses at high fees. We submitted documents to show that the representations made by him in his advertisements were fraudulent.
We followed up closely with the investigating officer over several months. We asked him for updates into the investigations. His reply was "still under investigation". He was not able to give any concrete information to us.
After six months or so, we received a reply that the matter had been closed, due to lack of evidence.
We insisted on meeting the investigating officer. I asked him, "Did you call up the person mentioned in our complaint for questioning? He said, "no". I asked him again, "You mean that you investigated for six months without even meeting this person to ask for his explanation to our allegations?". He said. "Yes". I know for a fact that he did not call me or my co-complainant for further clarification on our complaint.
One year later, I helped a group of people to lodge another complaint another person who allegedly cheated them on some investment. The outcome of the case was the same. The investigating officer reported after six months or so, that there was "no case".
In both cases, I strongly suspected that the investigating officer just prepare the paper reports and did the paper research. They probably did not call the complainants for further clarification or the persons complained against for their explanation.
What's wrong?
The police did not do the basic steps needed to investigate the complaint.
After a while, the parties who are committing fraud to cheat the public will get the impression that no action will be taken. They will continue to perpetuate one fraud after another.
They will close down one company who has a bad record of complaints and set up a new company to continue their fraudulent activities. Some of these fraudsters had continued their operations for more than a decade.
How to put it right
The investigating officer should call up the parties complained against to get their explanations on the allegations against them. He should also keep in regular touch with the complainants to get further clarification from them and to give them the assurance that their complaints are getting the required attention.
We followed up closely with the investigating officer over several months. We asked him for updates into the investigations. His reply was "still under investigation". He was not able to give any concrete information to us.
After six months or so, we received a reply that the matter had been closed, due to lack of evidence.
We insisted on meeting the investigating officer. I asked him, "Did you call up the person mentioned in our complaint for questioning? He said, "no". I asked him again, "You mean that you investigated for six months without even meeting this person to ask for his explanation to our allegations?". He said. "Yes". I know for a fact that he did not call me or my co-complainant for further clarification on our complaint.
One year later, I helped a group of people to lodge another complaint another person who allegedly cheated them on some investment. The outcome of the case was the same. The investigating officer reported after six months or so, that there was "no case".
In both cases, I strongly suspected that the investigating officer just prepare the paper reports and did the paper research. They probably did not call the complainants for further clarification or the persons complained against for their explanation.
What's wrong?
The police did not do the basic steps needed to investigate the complaint.
After a while, the parties who are committing fraud to cheat the public will get the impression that no action will be taken. They will continue to perpetuate one fraud after another.
They will close down one company who has a bad record of complaints and set up a new company to continue their fraudulent activities. Some of these fraudsters had continued their operations for more than a decade.
How to put it right
The investigating officer should call up the parties complained against to get their explanations on the allegations against them. He should also keep in regular touch with the complainants to get further clarification from them and to give them the assurance that their complaints are getting the required attention.
The problem is not only in the police force but very wide spread in govt departments like Hdb too. Our govt seems to be very poor in hr recruitment. They seem to recruit at random, then good ones leave & tidak apa type remain to wait for 5 pm to leave & collect salary end of month.
ReplyDeleteSame same like mad
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCould that be one possible reason for the low crime rate?