Its Fraudscape Bulletin for July revealed that the amount of mortgage fraud remained relatively stable, rising just 1% in the first six months of 2011 compared to H1 last year.
However, CIFAS highlighted that the nature of mortgage fraud has shifted, with the kinds of mortgage fraud seen during the boom years no longer being uncovered.
Instead, the most common reasons for mortgage fraud being recorded were for individuals attempting to manipulate mortgage applications to hide adverse credit or give false income information.
CIFAS warned that, as the tough economic climate continues, businesses must continue their due diligence against such attempts.
Attempts to hide adverse credit at an undisclosed address were the most significant type of mortgage fraud during H1 2011 at 24%, accounting for 394 cases.
This was closely followed by false proof of income at 24% (387 cases), while false employment details accounted for 20% of cases – up from 10% in the last six months of 2010.
In addition, altered documents accounted for 14% of mortgage fraud, while undisclosed adverse credit was 9%, with some frauds recorded for more than one reason.
Overall, CIFAS figures showed fraud rose 10% to 111,504 frauds in the first half of 2011 compared to the first six months of last year.
Identity fraud remained high, rising 11% in H1 2011 year-on-year to 51,796 and accounting for 46% of all frauds. A further 11% of frauds involved the illegal hijacking of a person’s account.
CIFAS said that the fraud levels recorded, quarter by quarter, followed a similar pattern to previous years, with a high point at the end of the first quarter in March followed by a dip in April, which contained several bank holidays. However, May and June both posted higher figures.
Richard Hurley, communications manager of CIFAS, said: “What Fraudscape Bulletin demonstrates is that the volatility in fraud previously identified by CIFAS shows no signs of abating.
“Whether it is the organised criminal, the opportunist or the genuinely needy who commit it, the changes not only in frequency, but also method, prove that businesses, individuals and public organisations alike must start taking this threat more seriously.
“CIFAS strongly urges that an active, preventative, approach is taken to tackling fraud, as opposed to a costly clean up effort designed to limit damage after the fact.”
