| CASE STUDIES |
| |
| Case 11
|
| Updated in June 2007 |
| |
| Dual Identity |
| |
| A background check conducted for existing
employees with one of our clients resulted in Navneet being
divested of her position after tenure of nearly 2 years.
|
| |
| Navneet's past employment check was, to put
it simply, quite a riddle. Stated employment was with 2
companies. But documents submitted were for one stated
employment and from another employer not mentioned by the
candidate. All documents submitted were in the name of Navneet. |
| |
| When the earlier of her 2 stated employers
was contacted, his statement that Navneet had died of pneumonia
after a year of leaving their employment put our verification
team on a high-alert. The line of questioning also revealed 'Navneet'
was married. Document submitted as proof of employment was
authenticated. |
| |
| The later employer verified 'Navneet' never
did work for them; however another employee with the same
address and same father's name, probably a sister did work for
them but her tenure was different. As no documents were provided
for this employer, no authentication could be conducted. |
| |
| When the employer whose document was
submitted but the employment not mentioned was contacted, they
verified Navneet did work with them and the submitted document
was genuine in all respects, except the date of the letter which
was tampered with to appear as June 19, 2004 whereas the tenure
was from January 19, 2005 till October 2005. |
| |
| While during the physical address
verification, the mother stated that one of her daughter's was
married and lived at Chandigarh and the other was employed at
the client's; in the course of the telephonic verification the
brother stated one of his sisters was no longer alive and he
lived with his mother and Navneet. |
| |
| To substantiate our findings a photographic
verification was undertaken, a present day photograph of 'Navneet'
was sent to her first employer to identify whether it was the
same person. He said the two were definitely different people.
|
| |
| The Head HR of the company which said the
sister was probably working with them was then shown the
photograph. He compared it with a photograph they had in their
system. Said the two were similar but not the same. All the
photographs were closely compared by our team and the conclusion
was same. |
| |
| On the basis of the discrepant report sent
to the client, 'Navneet' was asked to explain. After an initial
attempt to cover-up, she eventually confessed to impersonating
as Navneet using the offer made to Navneet, as Navneet expired
due to pneumonia before she could join the new company. As no
documents were needed as proof at the time, Navneet's sister
found it easy to step in |
| |
|
