Tech Support : support@safience.io

Blog

Sun’s Out, Bikes Out — Help Protect Kids From Brain Injuries By Using Helmets

By a Biometrica staffer

Summer is almost upon us and the country seems to be gearing up for a truly lively few months.

With around 39% of the population fully vaccinated and the Covid-19 case count dropping to its lowest level yet since June 2020, Americans are getting ready for a summer spent outside, filled with travel, barbecues and reuniting with family and friends. Kids, especially, after a trying 18 months cooped up inside, are looking forward to summer camps and time spent with their friends before they return to school in the fall. 

One activity that saw a resurgence in popularity during the pandemic was bicycling. Bike riding is a great activity to promote among children. Not only is it a good way for them to get fresh air and socialize outside, it is also a dynamic and enjoyable form of exercise. With this in mind, the CDC is once again reminding parents to outfit their children with good quality helmets to protect them against brain injuries.

The statistics around the lack of helmet use and around traumatic brain injuries in children are alarming. Official estimates suggest that almost 500,000 kids visit emergency rooms every year for traumatic brain injuries, including concussions. About half the brain injuries in kids is due to falls, which can include injuries sustained while biking. In fact, one study found that 45.7% of biking injuries involved children between 10–14 years of age.

A traumatic brain injury to a child is worth worrying over, as it may affect their development going forward. It can also affect their ability to play sports and participate fully in other school activities. According to the CDC, a traumatic brain injury may lead to a child experiencing “changes in their health, thinking, and behavior that affect learning, self-regulation, and social participation,” which, of course, have long-term impacts. While it is true that injury rates have been declining, biking is still a significant source of injury for children.

One of the easiest ways to help lower the risk of brain injuries among children is to give them a helmet. The use of good helmets “has demonstrated significant protective effects” and can markedly reduce the likelihood of head and neck injuries. In fact, according to some estimates, just wearing a properly fitted helmet can bring down the risk of head injuries by at least 45%. Despite this, however, it does not seem to be common practice for children to wear helmets. By some estimates, less than 50% of children under the age of 14 regularly wear a bike helmet.

The CDC recommends that children consistently and always use well-fitted, certified helmets that are appropriate for their age. In addition, any helmet that has been involved in a serious crash or that is showing signs of damage must be replaced. Parents are also encouraged to teach their children the importance of wearing their helmets, in addition to following other safety laws and etiquette.

The CDC has also made available to parents a free app, on both the iOS App Store and the Google Play store, that helps them diagnose a possible concussion and what steps to take in the event of one. It encourages parents to learn the symptoms of a brain injury and monitor their children’s behaviour after a fall, so that they are ready to respond in a quick and efficient manner to any signs of trouble. The app also provides guidelines on how to properly fit and wear a helmet.

While it is true that no helmet is fully concussion-proof nor can it entirely remove the risk of a brain injury, all research and evidence seems to point to the fact that wearing a properly fitted helmet can help mitigate and minimize the risk of a child suffering a serious brain injury.

Mass Shootings Continue To Spike In 2021 With Another Violence-Ridden Weekend

By a Biometrica staffer

There were at least 12 mass shootings that took place between Friday night, May 21, and Sunday, May 23, in the U.S., CNN reported. According to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), the country has had 230 mass shootings in 2021. So far this year, 7,500 people have died from gun violence across the nation, the CNN report added, citing GVA numbers. In comparison, there were 417 mass shooting incidents in all of 2019, according to data from the GVA, the latest year for which its six year review extends.

A mass shooting incident is defined as one where four or more people are killed, excluding the shooter. The GVA documents every reported incident of gun violence in the United States, collecting this information from more than 7,500 law enforcement, media, government and commercial sources daily, in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence.

Even while the debate over gun control continues, President Joe Biden has made it clear that gun violence is a focus of his administration. On April 8, he announced an initial set of measures to take on what he called “an epidemic” of gun violence. This came mere hours after a shooting in Rock Hill, South Carolina claimed six lives in another senseless act of violence and a particularly bloody March, which saw several mass shootings.

Over the weekend, there were mass shootings reported in eight states, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Minnesota. Only two weeks ago, a man walked into a birthday party in Colorado Springs and killed six people and then himself. That was termed the deadliest mass shooting since March, when a gunman opened fire at a King Soopers outlet in Boulder, Colorado, killing 10, including police officer Eric Talley, who responded to the incident.

Here’s a roundup of some of the mass shootings across various states over the weekend:

Illinois

Police in Chicago, where 42 people were shot in separate unconnected incidents over the weekend, are investigating one that left four men injured on Sunday afternoon in the city’s West Side. The men were “near the outside of a residence when they heard shots and felt pain,” the CNN report said, citing the city police department. Three of the men are in good condition while the fourth was struck multiple times and is in a critical condition, the report adds. Detectives are investigating the shooting and there are no suspects in custody at the moment.

In another Illinois incident, a shooting in Park Forest early Sunday morning left four people injured, according to local media reports. Officers on foot in the downtown area heard shots fired just after 1 a.m. outside of a theater venue. The incident is thought to be connected to a private party that was held at the theater. The victims were treated by Park Forest and Matteson paramedics. None of the injuries are believed to be life-threatening, according to the police. More than one firearm is believed to have been involved in the shooting, and the investigation into it remains active and will continue.

Anyone with information on this incident is being asked to contact Park Forest police at 708-748-1309.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, a fatal mass shooting occurred over the weekend at a house party in Bridgeton that left two dead and 12 others injured. Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae identified the suspect as 36-year-old Kevin Dawkins, ABC News reported. Dawkins has been charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. The shooting was not a random act, but a targeted attack, authorities have said. But no further details about a possible motive have been released as yet.

Ohio

At least three people were killed and three others injured in a shooting outside a bar in Youngstown on Sunday, police said. Gunfire was reported shortly after 2 a.m. in the Torch Club Bar & Grille area. None of the shootings occurred in the bar, but they stemmed from an incident which began there, police said, according to an AP News report. Authorities said no one is in custody but they are talking to several individuals. They declined to comment on the number of weapons used, or other details, the report added.

Indiana

One person died and four others were injured after a shooting at an apartment complex in Fort Wayne. Police responded to reports of gunshots at the Villages of Hanna around 12:40 a.m. Saturday. Authorities said there appeared to be multiple shooters. Police have not yet released a motive in the shooting, according to an AP News report. The investigation is ongoing.

South Carolina

A 14-year old was killed and 13 others were wounded at a shooting that took place at an unauthorized concert in North Charleston late on Saturday night. Officers responded to the area of Piggly Wiggly Drive and West Jimtown Drive in reference to a shooting at about 10:30 p.m. and found numerous victims with gunshot wounds. A fight is said to have broken out near the concert stage prior to the shooting. The suspects have not been identified and a motive is not known yet, police said, according to USA Today.

Virginia

The Norfolk Police Department said it got a call on Sunday, May 23 just before 3 a.m. about a shooting that happened in the 3100 block of Westminster Avenue. Officers said four adults were shot and were taken to the hospital suffering non-life-threatening injuries, a 13 News Now report said.

Police are asking anyone with information on the shooting incident to call the Norfolk Crime Line at 1-888-LOCK-U-UP or click here to submit a tip online.

Texas

Four people, including a child, were injured in a shooting at a San Angelo sports complex Saturday night, according to police. The San Angelo Police Department said they responded to multiple 9-1-1 calls about shots fired at the Texas Bank Sports Complex just before 9 p.m., according to KTXS 12 ABC.

Minnesota

One suspect is in custody while another is dead after a mass shooting in downtown Minneapolis on Saturday evening, police said. All ten victims of the shooting are adults, police confirmed, according to an ABC News report. The shooting involved a dispute between two people who both pulled out guns and started shooting at each other.

Sex Offenders’ Registries And Background Checks: An Introduction

By a Biometrica staffer

In previous posts, we’ve explained Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidances on background checks, how negligent hiring can cost a company, and whether prospective employers can run checks on potential employees. Today, we introduce you to a very specific legal aspect linked to background checks: the sex offenders’ registry.

The concept of a sex offenders’ registry and the regulations around it have been in the news this week because of an incident that dates back to 1993. When he was 18, Randall Menges had consensual gay sex with two other consenting adults. The state of Idaho convicted him of violating its “crimes against nature” laws, which still stand in the state today and which also cover oral sex. A state court sent him to prison, where he served seven years, and also required him to register as a sex offender. 

On Tuesday, May 18, however, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen ruled that Menges should no longer be listed on the registry based on anti-sodomy laws that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2003. Christensen ordered Montana to remove Menges from the registry by May 21, and also mandated they expunge records that show he was required to register. But Montana’s attorney general plans to fight Christensen’s decision — he filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the next day.

Employers of all stripes use background screening reports to make a determination on potential or current employees, contractors, volunteers or candidates for employment or service, including promotion, reassignment and retention. Criminal background checks are often part of that screening process, and that’s where the sex offenders’ registry could come in.

For instance, a June 2018 survey of employers, conducted by HR.com and commissioned by what was then the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and is now the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA), found that 95% of employers surveyed stated that they conduct one or more types of background screening. Of that, 94% said that the check included some form of criminal history search. A comprehensive screening can include a sex offenders’ registry search.

History Of The Sex Offenders’ Registry

But first, a little bit of history behind the creation of the sex offenders’ registry in the first place. To begin with, there is no single sex offenders’ registry. Each state has its own and there is a database for those convicted for such offenses on the federal level.

The history of this concept goes back to 1994, when New Jersey became the first state to create a rudimentary sex offenders registry. Colloquially called “Megan’s Law,” it was passed in response to the kidnapping and murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka by Jesse Timmendequas, a convicted sex offender. Megan’s parents said that had they known they had a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender, they would never have let their daughter play outside unsupervised.

After New Jersey, several other states passed laws requiring authorities to inform the community when known sex offenders moved near them. In 1996, President Bill Clinton created an online federal sex offender registry. Today, all 50 states and several dozen tribes have sex offender registries in some form or the other.

The other act that played a big role in this is The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law on July 27, 2006. The Act includes a section that honors the memory of Dru Sjodin. On the evening of November 22, 2003, after leaving work, 22-year-old Dru went missing. An investigation led police officials to Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., who was arrested on December 1, 2003. Rodriguez was a Level 3 registered sexual offender in Minnesota and had been released from prison after a 23-year sentence only six months prior to Dru’s disappearance. Among other things, Dru’s Law changed the name of the National Sex Offender Public Registry to the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website (NSOPW), which provides information to the public on the whereabouts of registered sex offenders regardless of state, territory or tribal boundaries.

Can Employers Run Sex Offender Registry Searches?

In short — yes, prospective employers can run a search of a potential employee against the sex offenders’ registry in some cases. But the reality of doing so is more complicated. To begin with, each state has its own version of Megan’s Law and restrictions on the information from the registry that is publicly accessible, as well as limitations on other uses of it. Megan’s Law created three levels of sex offenders: Level 1 (low risk), Level 2 (moderate risk) and Level 3 (high risk). Local law enforcement decides whether to notify the public about Level 2 and 3 offenders. No information may be given out about Level 1 offenders.

But even if you have access to the information and the registry in your state, there could be restrictions. For example, California, where the list is publicly available, prohibits the use of any information from the Megan’s Law Database (the name by which the registry in the state is known) for several purposes, including employment. Why does the sex offenders’ registry matter, then, to the background screening process?

There are exemptions to the employment clause. Certain laws allow specific sectors to use the registry and, in some cases, employers are allowed to use it if it protects persons who are considered at risk. If you are a prospective employer, it’s wise to first look up the laws in your state governing the use of the registry, and then consult your legal team. Sectors that are exempted from this typically include government agencies, childcare, adoption agencies, community care, etc.

Arizona Legalizes Use Of Fentanyl Test Strips In Bid to Curb Accidental Overdoses

By Aara Ramesh

On May 18, Governor Doug Ducey signed into law a bill that excludes narcotic drug testing products from an existing law that classifies them as illegal drug paraphernalia. The particular target of this action are fentanyl test strips (FTS), which are able to determine whether a product contains fentanyl or one of its analogs.

The bill was introduced in the state senate on Jan 28, which unanimously approved it on Feb 23. On May 13, it passed the house in a 48–11 vote, sending it to the governor to be signed. The measure was championed by freshman Democrat Senator Christine Marsh, whose 25-year-old son Landon accidentally overdosed on a fentanyl-laced pill in May 2020. In his comments, Gov. Ducey thanked Sen. Marsh, and said that although the preference is for people suffering drug additions to seek professional treatment, this is a step forward in efforts to prevent accidental overdoses. 

https://twitter.com/ChristinePMarsh/status/1395070027804463106?s=20

Fentanyl is an extremely strong and potentially lethal synthetic opioid used for treating severe pain. It is 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine and just 2 mg of fentanyl is enough to kill someone; for reference, a lethal dose of heroin is generally 75–375 mg. The legal use of fentanyl is highly regulated but most overdoses and deaths related to this drug result from illicitly manufactured versions that are then mixed or cut with other drugs such as heroin and/or cocaine, the CDC says.

By determining whether drugs have been cut with fentanyl or its analogs, FTS can help mitigate the risk of accidental overdoses. Sen. Marsh says that FTS are potentially life saving and its legalization will help make sure that people — particularly teens and young adults — don’t inadvertently take drugs that are laced with fatal doses of fentanyl.

Previously, simply possessing FTS in Arizona could lead to a suspect facing serious drug charges. In early April 2021, the CDC announced that states would now be allowed to use federal funds to buy FTS. 

Studies have shown that FTS, which are low-tech and low-cost, are highly effective and accurate in detecting the tracest amounts of fentanyl, even though they have their limits. Drug users have indicated that they were concerned about their drugs being laced with fentanyl, and also agreed that being able to check their drugs would make them ”feel better” about protecting themselves from overdoses.

The U.S. has been suffering a crippling opioid epidemic for several years now. According to the NIH, drug overdose deaths involving prescription opioids rose to 17,029 in 2017 from 3,442 in 1999. In particular, there has been a staggering rise in the number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (a category that specifically includes fentanyl and its analogs), which increased 12 times between 2013 and 2019. The CDC says that “more than 36,000 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids in 2019.” It also noted that, according to provisional data, in the 12 months ending August 2020, there were around 88,000 drug overdose deaths — the highest-ever figure in any recorded 12-month period.

In a similar vein, Arizona has also seen an uptick in opioid abuse. In June 2017, Gov. Ducey declared an opioid emergency, after the number of drug-related deaths in the state increased 74% between 2012 and 2017. According to the Arizona Department of Public Health, opioid deaths increased from 1,359 in 2019 to 1,960 in 2020. Further, 2018 data showed that 18% of “verified opioid overdoses” were caused by fentanyl.

Last year, Landon Marsh took a Percocet pill, not knowing it was laced with fentanyl, in a moment of “stupidity” with a childhood friend, according to Sen. Marsh. She added that her son was not an addict. He had just gotten married and was in the process of getting a mechanical engineering degree. Sen. Marsh says Landon was just experimenting with drugs, as teens and young adults tend to do, and that in his case, fentanyl was “nefariously” added into the pill. His death led Sen. Marsh to prioritize opioid abuse in her agenda — something she was already familiar with, having seen the effects of drug abuse in her students during her long career as an educator. Gov. Ducey signed the bill into law on the one-year anniversary of Landon’s death.

Florida Legalizes Sports Betting, Ratifies Historic Gaming Compact With Seminole Tribe

By a Biometrica staffer

On Wednesday, 24 hours after the Florida Senate overwhelmingly voted to approve a potentially precedent-setting gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe, the ayes in the Florida House also held sway in a bipartisan vote, sending the measure negotiated by Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Tribe back to him for signature. Federal regulators at the US Department of the Interior (DOI), will now have 45 days to approve the compact, which reports state formalizes a historic expansion of gaming in the State and represents an equally significant agreement for the Tribe in Florida.

The final vote tally in the Senate was 97–17. The Seminole Indian Tribe has been the driving force behind gaming in Florida. The compact was agreed upon by the tribe and governor DeSantis in April. If the DOI takes no action, the compact will be considered approved.

It is believed that sports betting will not be able to go live in Florida until mid-October at the very least. But if approved, it would make Florida the largest state to allow sports gambling, a position currently held by New York.

Florida is the latest state to make moves towards legalizing sports betting, after the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which deemed it illegal, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2018. This allows individual states to decide for themselves whether to legalize it or not. Since then, at least 22 states have done so in some form or the other (as of April 2021). Total sports betting revenue in the U.S. crossed $900 million in 2019, according to some estimates.

In April, Arizona authorized a substantial, statewide expansion of legal gambling, including sports betting, when Governor Doug Ducey signed a tribal gaming compact. It legalizes betting on professional and college competitions at tribal casinos and sites owned by major professional sports teams, and may also lead to fantasy sports gambling operations.

According to Ducey, the compact was five years in the making. The bill passed both state chambers with bipartisan support, with a final tally of 48–12 in the House and 23–6 in the Senate.

The provisions in the bill are wide-ranging. It allows for private licenses to be granted to Arizona tribes and professional sports organizations, and also allows tribal casinos to expand their operations by adding more games, opening as many as four new casinos in the Phoenix area, and expanding the number of slot machines in use.

On Tuesday, May 18, Governor Larry Hogan legalized sports betting in Maryland in a marathon session during which he signed more than 200 bills into law. The law will go into effect June 1. It includes provisions for online betting and sports gambling in the state’s six casinos as well as in the M&T Bank Stadium, Camden Yards and Fed-Ex Field. In November 2020, more than two-thirds of voters indicated that they favored legalizing sports betting. The move is expected to bring it as much as $19 million, which officials say will be allocated to education spending.

Earlier in May, a bill to decide the regulations for sports wagering in the parishes where it is legal advanced in the Louisiana state senate. Since voters in 55 of 65 parishes voted in approval of legalizing sports betting last fall, legislation to do just that has been advancing at a fast clip as proponents say that there is great appetite for this measure. The bill will now head to the full senate for a debate and vote.

Despite Dallas being a particularly attractive candidate for casinos, efforts to legalize casino gambling and sports betting in Texas have likely been quashed for the year. The state constitution bans most forms of gambling. Advocates, however, believe that even if it doesn’t happen this legislative session, it is only a matter of time before it does.

Advocates in Ohio continue to battle for sports betting to be legalized, having set a deadline for themselves of June 30 to get it done. Currently only lawmakers in Idaho and Wisconsin have not made any public moves towards legalizing sports gambling in their states. Meanwhile, Utah is viewed as being unlikely to ever make the move, given the state’s long history of anti-gambling sentiment, which is also built into its constitution.

Supreme Court Clarifies When Warrantless Searches And Seizures In The Home Are Justified

By Charlotte Spencer

On Monday May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a ruling further clarifying fourth amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment, and the long history of case law surrounding it, deals with search and seizure, specifically when it is allowed, and when it is not allowed. As a part of the Bill of Rights, it is important to individual freedoms central to our country. This case, Caniglia v. Strom, centered around a man whose guns were confiscated from his home by police without a warrant after his wife had called for a welfare check on him. The question before the court was whether this was allowed under a “caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment established in earlier case law.

What Does The Fourth Amendment Say?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What Happened?

It all started when Edward Caniglia and his wife, Kim Caniglia, got into an argument. He left the dining room of their home, where the argument was occurring, got a gun from the bedroom, returned and placed it on the table before her. He then asked her, “why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.” He left after she threatened to call 911. She then hid the gun, and noticed that it had never been loaded in the first place. When he returned they continued their argument. She decided to leave for the night and get a hotel room. The next morning, when she tried to reach him by phone, she could not. This alarmed her because of the suicidal thoughts which he had expressed the night before. She called the police to request a welfare check. Police went with her to the house to check on her husband, where they found him sitting on the front porch. Although he claimed that he was not suicidal, he did confirm that his wife’s account of the argument was correct, and that he had asked her to shoot him. Police decided, based on this, that they should take action, even though they did not have a warrant, because they believed that he posed a risk to himself or others.

What happened next would become the subject of the court cases that would follow. Caniglia agreed to get in the ambulance and go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation only after police agreed not to confiscate his guns. Once he had gone, his wife let police into the house and guided them to the guns so that they could confiscate them. Caniglia alleged that police had gotten her to do this by misinforming her about his wishes. He sued, claiming that they had violated his fourth amendment rights by seizing him, and entering his home and seizing his guns without a warrant.

What Were The Arguments?

Pro-Confiscation

The District Court, who first heard the case decided mostly in favor of the police and granted summary judgement to the city on all but one of the counts, reasoning that “the City operated within its duties to care for the community during the well-being check on Mr. Caniglia and his family.” The city argued that police did not violate Caniglia’s fourth amendment rights because they did not stop or arrest him for law enforcement purposes, but rather in “furtherance of their duties under the community caretaking function.” The District Court agreed with this reasoning. In reaching this decision they relied on case law from several cases, including Cady v. Dombrowski, in which the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between law enforcement functions and community caretaking functions conducted by police. The District Court did, however, acknowledge in a footnote of their opinion that “Mr. Caniglia correctly points out that courts are split about whether the community caretaking function standard the United States Supreme Court first set forth in Cady in the vehicle context also applies to searches of a home…”

Caniglia appealed this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The First Circuit Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling, reasoning “the actions of the defendant officers, though not letter perfect, did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.” The First Circuit also cited Cady v. Dombrowski, arguing that, “Given the doctrine’s core purpose, its gradual expansion since Cady, and the practical realities of policing, we think it plain that the community caretaking doctrine may, under the right circumstances, have purchase outside the motor vehicle context.”

Anti-Confiscation

The District Court, who first heard the case decided in favor of Caniglia on one of the counts, reasoning that “The City infringed on Mr. Caniglia’s rights when it refused to return his property and failed to provide him with any process of how to get it back after his health and safety were secured.” At the point when his health and safety were secured, in other words, the community caretaking function would no longer apply.

Caniglia argued in the District Court case, the Appeals Court case, and the eventual Supreme Court case that the police had no right to transport him to the hospital, or to enter his home and take his guns in the first place. He reasoned that “Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Rhode Island Supreme Court have ever authorized the use of the CCF [community caretaking function] to seize people or property from a home.”

What Did The Supreme Court Rule?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Caniglia. Like Caniglia, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between vehicles and the home when it comes to the community caretaking function. As stated in the Court’s conclusion: “What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much, and this Court has repeatedly ‘declined to expand the scope of . . . exceptions to the warrant requirement to permit warrantless entry into the home.’ Collins, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8).” In other words, the Supreme Court in no way overturned what had been established in Cady. The Court simply clarified that this case law applied only to the original circumstances it dealt with, that being search and seizure as it relates to vehicles. As the Court pointed out, vehicles often have to do with the noncriminal community caretaking function of police when they are disabled on a roadway or involved in accidents, but this does not apply to houses. By contrast, the law and culture in the United States has always been particularly protective of privacy in the home.

What Does This Mean For The Average Person?

First, this does not mean that there are never circumstances under which police or other law officers can enter the home without a warrant. Like anyone else they can, of course, enter when invited. They can also enter under “exigent circumstances.” In other words, they can enter for an emergency. For example, they can enter when a person is in immediate danger and there is no time to get a warrant. This was not the case here.

This ruling means that police cannot apply the community caretaking function to enter a home and seize property without a warrant. They can, however, still do this with a vehicle as case law had already established.

What Did Individual Justices Have To Say About It?

Although the ruling was unanimous, some Justices took the time to write concurring opinions. Here is a short overview.

Roberts

Justice Roberts joined the majority opinion, but took time to clarify that he joined that opinion because nothing in it contradicted the Court’s earlier rulings in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406 (2006). “A warrant to enter a home is not required, we explained, when there is a ‘need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.’”

Alito

Justice Alito wrote separately to clarify several points. These points mainly had to do with clarifying questions which the Court did not decide in its ruling so as to limit later overly-broad interpretations of the ruling. He pointed out that the Court was not deciding questions involving state laws allowing emergency seizure for psychiatric evaluation, questions involving state “red flag” laws that allow police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent harm, or questions involving cases where police enter without a warrant to ascertain a possible medical emergency.

Kavanaugh

Justice Kavanaugh also wrote separately to clarify that this decision was not a broad decision banning entry without a warrant in every circumstance, and listing some examples where this would still be allowed, such as emergencies.

This article was last updated May 19, 2021. The information provided in this article should not be considered legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. Biometrica is not a law firm and cannot offer legal advice.

House Sends Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Bill To President Biden’s Desk

By a Biometrica staffer

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday, May 18, passed the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act in a 364–62 vote, sending it to President Joe Biden to be signed into law. The initiative to pass the bill was led by Representative Grace Meng (D-New York’s 6th District) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i). It was introduced in the Senate in March, where it was passed in a 94–1 vote on April 22.

The bill was primarily motivated by a recorded rise in reports of hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI). According to the non-profit Stop AAPI Hate, between March 2020 and February 2021 (roughly the period covering the spread of Covid-19), there were almost 3,800 reports of AAPI discrimination and “incidents” across the country. In 90% of these incidents, race was cited as the primary motive. Around one-third (36%) of the incidents took place at a business.

In March, a 21-year-old white man shot and killed 8 people in Atlanta, Georgia; six of those killed were women of Asian descent. In the wake of the tragedy, President Biden “urged” Congress to pass the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act as soon as possible, so that the federal government could more quickly respond to the rise in AAPI hate crimes.

The bill requires the Department of Justice to establish a specific position — a czar of sorts — to oversee the reporting and review of hate crimes. It also suggests a series of measures that the DOJ can take to better help state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies identify, prevent, and address hate crimes. The aim is to make reporting easier and more accessible, and to generate data that is more actionable. This includes setting up online reporting processes and hotlines in multiple languages, as well as better categorizing data by protected characteristic (e.g., race or national origin).

In addition, the bill also mandates financial assistance be provided to local authorities to implement campaigns that will better educate officers and the public on such hate crimes. It also suggests measures to expand community resources so that they can effectively support victims.

Folded into the bill is the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality Act of 2021 (Jabara-Heyer “NO HATE” Act), named for Khalid Jabara, a Lebanese American murdered by a neighbor in a racist attack in 2016, and Heather Heyer, who was run over and killed in 2017 during the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. Neither of these killings were considered hate crimes at the time, but would be classified as such under the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act.

Read our piece on the rise of hate crimes in the U.S. here

Read our piece on the rise of AAPI hate crimes here

Read more about President Biden’s remarks on the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act here

See a list of anti hate crime legislation pending before Congress here

Read our piece on hate crimes against the Sikh community after 9/11 here

Follow The Trail — Cryptocurrency Can Be A Perfect Fit For Transparency In Finance

Even as Bitcoin, the world’s largest digital token, and other cryptocurrencies continued their dramatic free fall Wednesday, we thought it would be a good day to remind people as to why Bitcoin remains a perfect tool for regulators, investigators, banks and nonbank financial institutions (NBFIs), including casinos, who like having an immutable audit trail. Bitcoin, contrary to what financial traditionalists say, was not made for the bad guys. Bitcoin has more to do with trust and transparency than with being a mere medium of exchange. As with all tools, whether it is good or bad depends on the way it is used. But, if used correctly, these trails of disconnected digital breadcrumbs, often across multiple categories of NBFIs like money transmitters and casinos, could become immutable travel logs on a large map for all to see instead.

By Joe Ciccolo

The world of financial surveillance is moving into plain sight. As we continue to go down that path of the physical to the digital and the digital to the physical, digital stores of value, whether currency or other assets, will become easier to track and analyze. And no, this does not mean this is a validation of George Orwell’s dystopian novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Ironically, perhaps, for Orwellian supporters, it’s quite the contrary, and is more of a refutation of that all-seeing authoritarian state. Here’s why.

“Follow the money” is and always has been the maxim for investigators, whether in journalism, forensic accounting, counterterrorism, or anti-money laundering (AML). Of that last, whether you’re a once green analyst, or a leading consultant in the field of AML, that guiding principle stays strong and true, as does one more fact: The bad guys will continue to refine their craft, and push the boundaries of creativity to hide the source(s) of their ill-gotten gains, and obscure any physical or audit trail.

However, with time, these trails, obscured by money-launderers and other criminals, will no longer be fragmented pieces of data residing on the centralized, siloed servers of financial institutions and non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs). These trails of disconnected digital breadcrumbs, often across multiple categories of NBFIs like money transmitters and casinos, will instead become immutable travel logs on a large map for all to see. In time, investigators will be able to quickly follow the money and document with certainty the source(s) of funds and actors involved.

This might sound like “Nineteen eighty-four.” But think 2008. November 2008 to be more precise, when an unknown individual or group of individuals under the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto” published a whitepaper entitled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” That whitepaper, originally posted to an obscure cryptography blog, has since given rise to a burgeoning new sub-sector within the financial services industry.

At its core, however, bitcoin has much less to do with a medium of exchange and more to do with trust and transparency. Trust in a permission-less, decentralized, consensus-based network; transparency in the form of an absolute, unchallengeable record.

That much-heralded technical innovation of bitcoin, known as the “blockchain”, serves as the public ledger of bitcoin transactions. Participants connected to the network can send new transactions for verification, which are then ultimately published on the blockchain for all to see. As an open-source, permission-less platform, anyone with a mobile device and Internet connectivity can review any and all transactions dating back to the first bitcoin transaction.

What’s more, the transactions posted to the blockchain are date and time-stamped and contain the wallet address of both the sender and recipient. Once posted to the blockchain, this data cannot be changed by anyone. The benefits of blockchain from an investigatory perspective should be obvious. It’s the perfect audit trail!

There’s a decent chance you haven’t heard bitcoin and audit trail in the same sentence, and if you have, it probably wasn’t anything positive. After all, the general understanding of it is that it’s anonymous, because one can send and receive bitcoin without sharing any personally identifying information. That’s just not true. Bitcoin is pseudonymous. This is a feature, not a bug. It allows participants in the system to record their transactions securely and transparently, while offering assurances that funds may be traced using old fashion investigative activities — should the need arise. Follow the money indeed.

Transactions posted to the blockchain offer the investigator certain clues as to identity of parties involved. Wallet addresses may be linked together or traced to individuals and entities such as bitcoin exchanges, online trading platforms, and casinos too, in a not-so-distant future. In fact, it would probably raise some interesting internal questions for organizations like casinos, because of the ability to track “cash” transactions.

When the need arises, parties involved in transactions can be deposed by legal counsel or subpoenaed by law enforcement to produce records of the identity behind the wallet address, lifting the veil of pseudonymity through due process, and without compromising data security, integrity, and crucially, the innocent.

It seems the concept of an open-source network is doing what no one else could do, replacing the patchwork of antiquated centralized systems inside siloed financial institutions, including NBFIs, with an immutable distributed ledger that is available for inspection by anyone, anytime, anywhere. No longer will banks or other non-bank financial institutions have to ask permission via formal written request to share information with each other in order to continue following that proverbial trail of breadcrumbs. Instead, we’re moving to a universally accepted map of transactions open and accessible to all without permission.

Whether bitcoin survives or some other digital currency takes its place, is immaterial. The underlying technology is here to stay. Financial transactions and surveillance thereof will be conducted in plain sight — not just by compliance departments and government regulators but also by ordinary citizens, journalists, and other watchdogs.

It’s easy to become territorial as investigators and think that financial transactions and investigations are the domain of governments and institutions. Yes, as compliance professionals, we ought to take the lead in preparing for the realities of distributed ledger technology, and any other innovation within our field for that matter. However, as my colleagues in the regulatory community so often say: “We’re in this together!”

This is about building communities and networks, and is best viewed as a partnership between institutions, regulators, and law enforcement. Will this create a free-for-all with every John and Jane “deputizing” themselves? Perhaps. But how reassuring would it be that more people, organizations, and institutions feel vested in maintaining transparency and trust within our financial system.

The author is an acknowledged expert in building and implementing successful Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering programs for traditional and non-traditional financial institutions that offer a variety of banking products and services. Ciccolo can be reached here.

Read Biometrica’s piece from yesterday, May 18, on cryptocurrency frauds here.

Fraudsters Ride The Cryptocurrency Tsunami, Dangerous Tides Ahead

By Aara Ramesh

On Monday, May 17, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released data about cryptocurrency investment scams, as reported by consumers in October 2020–March 2021. In that six-month period, the FTC received almost 7,000 complaints, amounting to a total of $80 million lost in cryptocurrency investment scams alone, with the median reported loss being $1,900. This represented a 1,000% increase in value lost and a 12X growth in the volume of complaints received during the same period in the previous year. 

People in the 20–49 age range were five times more likely to report losing money on cryptocurrency scams than older complainants. Those in their 20s and 30s reported losing a lot more in cryptocurrency fraud, when compared with any other type, and over 50% of the fraud they reported involved cryptocurrency.

Overall levels of fraud have increased recently, with one financial services firm estimating that it is costing the world approximately $5.13 trillion each year. The Securities and Exchange Commission warned the public at the tail-end of last year, to be vigilant against investment scams, which seem to spike during “times of uncertainty and change, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.”

Some experts believe that cryptocurrency theft is one of the fastest-growing forms of cybercrime. The FTC data only seems to confirm that. In fact, as the FTC relies on consumers reporting fraud, the real numbers may actually be much higher. So, what is cryptocurrency and why should you stay vigilant?

Cryptocurrency 101

If your investment-savvy neighbor or banker sister is to be believed, then cryptocurrency is more than the next big thing — it is the future.

The simple way of understanding cryptocurrencies is to look at it like tokens at an arcade. You need “real” money to buy tokens, which you then use to play the games within the arcade, but you cannot use those tokens at your local corner-shop. In the same way, you need “real” money to buy Bitcoin, which you can then use on a select number of services (at the moment). You can also keep your digital currency safely away because you have the feeling that in a couple months or years, you’ll be able to trade in your Bitcoin for more dollars than you spent on it in the first place.

That’s cryptocurrency and its uses, in an oversimplified nutshell.

These entirely digital tokens have no physical form, they are held in a digital wallet and are bought and sold through an online exchange. The way to generate more cryptocurrencies is through a process called “mining.” This is a peer-to-peer (P2P) system in which “miners” validate other users’ transactions. That is, they create “hash codes to encrypt the transactions.” Essentially, they remove the middlemen.

All cryptocurrency transactions are recorded in a decentralized, public ledger called a “blockchain.” Blockchains build on themselves, “storing an ever-increasing amount of data about the transactions for a specific cryptocurrency.” While the blockchain is available to the public, the specifics of individual transactions are secured using cryptography.

According to Investopedia, one of the myriad benefits of cryptocurrencies is that they are extremely difficult to counterfeit. They cater to the premium that users place on anonymity and privacy, though the level you can expect depends on the currency being used. Cryptocurrencies are fully legal in the U.S., though this may not be the case in other countries, such as China.

There is some ambiguity about the exact classification of cryptocurrencies. Some view it as a future alternative to existing money like the dollar, and buy it up now before it becomes too expensive. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies removes monetary policy from the mix, meaning that the risk of money being devalued via inflation is reduced. Others just see it as an investment tool, like a stock or a bond. It shares some similarities with gold, but is not quite like it either, as it has no intrinsic value nor use. It is an extremely risky form of trading, just like foreign exchange trading.

On the other hand, legendary investor Warren Buffett does not see much value in cryptocurrencies, likening it to “paper checks.” Unlike fiat money, which has its own stored value, Buffett believes that cryptocurrencies are just “a very effective way of transmitting money,” just like a paper check.

There are also some concerns over the environmental impact of the growth in the cryptocurrency market. The process of mining requires both excellent hardware and a reliable supply of power, making it incredibly energy inefficient.

Additionally, unless you are a “miner,” you will need traditional fiat money to buy one of the types of cryptocoin, making it less accessible and another tool for those used to trading in financial instruments.

The three most popular types of cryptocurrency at the moment are Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and Ethereum. Bitcoin has risen almost 100% in value since the start of the year, while Ethereum gained almost 450% value and Dogecoin is up over 10,000% over the same period. The S&P 500 has risen around 13% this year, just so you get an idea.

Bitcoin, created in 2009, is the oldest and most well-known of the thousands of cryptocurrencies on the market today. Its current value is around $43,638.70. Much like Xerox and Kleenex before it, Bitcoin has become, to the lay-person, the generic name for all cryptocurrencies, though it is only one subtype. It makes up over half the entire market, and the rallies it’s seen have been a major factor behind cryptocurrency’s meteoric rise. 

Ethereum is the second-largest digital currency in the market, though Dogecoin, created in 2013 and based on the meme, is gaining traction.

To say that the market for cryptocurrencies is growing rapidly would be a gross understatement. In April this year, its value breached the $2 trillion mark for the first time ever. It is also, to put it mildly, a rollercoaster. On May 17, the market took a sharp downswing, wiping out over half a trillion dollars in value and falling to $2.02 trillion from the previous week’s peak of about $2.546 trillion.

Some experts attribute the recent spike in cryptocurrency trading to apps such as Robinhood and Coinbase giving users a chance to invest in these digital tokens and convert them to cash. This coincided neatly with the pandemic, in which people were isolated at home, cut off from many forms of entertainment, and were armed with stimulus money — many turned to cryptocurrency trading and investing as a hobby.

This all seems to be another step in blurring the boundaries between gambling, gamification, and cryptocurrency. Earlier this year, International Gaming Technology (IGT), the world’s largest maker of slot machines, made moves towards working cryptocurrencies into future betting transactions.

Also, to cash in on this trend, there have been reports that wealth management institutions, including Morgan Stanley, Fidelity, and Goldman Sachs, are devising strategies to get involved in the crypto-game. Coinbase recently became the first cryptocurrency exchange to go public on the Nasdaq, and more brands such as PayPal and Sotheby’s are accepting it as a form of payment now. 

The Other Side Of The Crypto-Coin

Part of the problem with cryptocurrencies is its inherently paradoxical nature. While its security is a draw for many investors, its decentralised P2P system means that there is almost nothing in the way of oversight or regulations. It is not FDIC insured so there will be no government authority to step in and cover loss from fraud. This is especially challenging, given that most of these frauds can allegedly be traced back to foreign countries.

The legalities surrounding it, regulating its purchase and use, are complex, but they are also still in their infancy. In fact, some have likened the market and its associated scams to the “Wild, Wild West.” 

It’s hardly a surprise that this space is increasingly attractive to fraudsters and criminals. In 2020, according to the FBI, the US lost over $4 billion in internet crime. Earlier in May, a cyber crime-syndicate hacked the largest fuel pipeline in the US, demanding a ransom in Bitcoin in return. This prompted President Biden to order his administration to prioritize beefing up the country’s protections and weapons against cyberattacks. In February, unsealed documents revealed that three North Korean hackers had been involved in an extortion and theft scheme worth $1.3 billion, wherein they were attempting to extract money and cryptocurrency from financial institutions and companies.

As the warning from the FTC indicates, however, regulators are increasingly being forced to scrutinize cryptocurrency transactions.

The Elon Musk Of It All

One name increasingly linked to the rise of cryptocurrency is that of the CEO of Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk. The FTC even singles him out in their warning over cryptocurrency scams, saying that since October consumers have reported losing over $2 million to impersonators of Musk alone.

Over recent years, but particularly during the pandemic, there has been an amalgamation of pop culture and the financial world. Celebrities are hopping on the bandwagon, while the “front page of the internet,” Reddit, takes on Wall Street short sellers and uses memes as its rallying cry. Apps like Robinhood have gamified investment, rewarding users with confetti when they make a trade and sending them push notifications to urge them to check the app multiple times a day. Old-school memes are becoming Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) that sell for thousands of dollars. (Think of an NFT as owning the original version of a painting versus owning a reprint.) What was once the purview of a select few is now a free-for-all buffet. 

Amidst this, Musk has oscillated between vouching for Bitcoin, to not; from calling Dogecoin “a hustle,” to nicknaming himself “the Dogefather.”

It seems like cryptocurrency scams are just the new form of the old, familiar classics — the twentieth century had Ponzi and Madoff, we in the twenty-first century have this. There have always been fraudsters who seek to exploit people’s lack of expertise in trading financial instruments. Now, they are just capitalizing on the reach of the internet, the intricacies of cryptocurrency, and the uncertainty of the market.

The information provided in this article should not be considered legal, financial, or investment advice or a substitute for it. Biometrica is not a law firm nor an investment/financial advisory firm and cannot offer such advice.

Migrant Smuggling Activities Continued Despite Pandemic: European Migrant Smuggling Centre Report

By a Biometrica staffer

The Covid-19 pandemic has, undoubtedly, disrupted everyone’s lives across the world. Yet, most of us have managed to find a semblance of normal and continue to follow our routines. So, it would be folly to assume that criminal networks have not managed to find their footing and resume their illegal activities, too. And that’s exactly what the European Migrant Smuggling Centre Report highlights at the outset. The pandemic is an example that global crises do not significantly disrupt migration flows, the report says. After an initial slow down during the first lockdown in March-April 2020, migrant smuggling activities quickly resumed, it adds.

Despite unprecedented travel restrictions brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic, criminal networks have continued to thrive, and have displayed a high degree of adaptability, according to the report, which was published by Europol on May 17. “Europol’s operational support and services have been increasingly requested, despite the challenges in providing on-the-spot support,” it said. Criminal networks boosted new routes as a result of the travel restrictions, like the revived Western African route, and adjusted their modi operandi to movement restrictions and enhanced border controls. Meanwhile, using websites to advertise the sexual services of victims to clients has become a fundamental feature of the human trafficking circuit, the report says.

The report goes on to highlight several aspects of migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings (THB). In today’s piece, we focus on a few of those aspects: Threats to the EU from migrant smuggling, THB in the post-pandemic era, and other trends in modi operandi.

Various Facets Of Migrant Smuggling

There are several aspects of migrant smuggling that poses a threat to the EU, according to the report. Those include:

  • Facilitation of secondary movements of irregular migrants already present in the EU: This is diverse, sometimes multidirectional, and there are significant differences across nationalities, the report says. Smuggling networks exploit routes departing from the first entry points in the EU (i.e. Spain, Italy, Greece) to destination countries like France, Germany, the UK, and others. They facilitate secondary movements by land, on foot or by vehicles, and by boats and planes. They can easily stay under the radar, thanks to the EU’s efficient transport infrastructure and the use by these criminal groups of simple, but effective, measures like built-in hiding places, rental cars, forerunners etc.
  • Legalization of their residence status: The facilitation of illegal immigrants takes place in an increasingly networked environment, the report says. Document fraud and legislation expertise is often provided as a service. Add to this legal business structures, corruption, and money laundering, and you get the picture of the criminal infrastructure that’s built to support smuggling operations.
  • Abuse of procedures: Criminal networks often systematically capitalize on and abuse asylum procedures and loopholes in legislation applicable to entry to, and legalization of, stay in the EU.
  • Digital aids: Digital solutions, encryption and opportunities offered by the online environment act as strong enablers of migrant smuggling, used in all stages of criminal operations, from advertising and recruiting of irregular migrants, to guidance and sharing of forged documents and instructions.

The threats to the EU aside, migrant smugglers treat irregular migrants as commodities. They often prioritize the aim of maximizing profits over the risks to the migrants’ physical and psychological health. They also frequently employ direct violence or the threat of violence against migrants, against law enforcement officers when avoiding apprehension and occasionally against other smugglers active in the same area. Furthermore, smugglers increasingly put the lives of migrants at risk. They use unseaworthy vessels or make them hide in small confined spaces for prolonged periods.

THB In The Covid-19 Pandemic Era

THB is considered a core activity of serious and organized crime in the EU and is set to remain a threat to it in the near future, the report says. Victims of THB are exploited by criminal networks originating all over the world. These days, the process features several online components, including those on the dark web, that the report says is set to become more pronounced in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, with the digital gaining momentum. Traffickers use online platforms and services to identify victims, orchestrate THB for sexual exploitation and advertise the services of victims. One of the most frequently reported modus operandi for the recruitment of victims for sexual exploitation remained the lover-boy method, the report says, with offenders reverting increasingly to psychological pressure to the detriment of direct physical abuse.

Traffickers are increasingly trying to exploit their victims through, supposedly, voluntary business agreements. As part of these deals, the victims agree to engage in prostitution and hand over a share of their earnings in exchange for help with administrative issues. Trafficking for labor exploitation, meanwhile, continues to take place mostly in cash-intensive, and less controlled, businesses like agriculture and construction. But even legal organizations are used to organize the exploitation of THB victims.

Modi Operandi Trends In 2020

Smuggling of irregular migrants concealed in vehicles is the most common practice for the facilitation of illegal immigration in the Western Balkans and neighboring countries, the report says. This modus operandi was on an upward trend in 2020, with the number of such cases reported in the fourth quarter increasing three-fold compared with the same period in 2019. Overall, the number of such cases doubled in 2020 compared with 2019 and the number of facilitated irregular migrants tripled, the report adds.

Smugglers are reported to employ risky behavior by trying to hide the maximum possible migrants inside a vehicle to increase their profits. The migrants are often transported in locked, dark, airless cargo compartments, in crowded, inhuman conditions that are not suitable for passenger transport. They’re also usually transported for several hours without stopping, to avoid apprehension. The top five nationalities of those apprehended in the last quarter of 2020 were Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish and Croatian nationals.

There was also a significant upward trend in the usage of small boats in 2020 for illegal immigration from mainland Europe across the English Channel to the UK. The trend has been noticed since November 2019 and consolidated through out 2020, suggesting that it has become the main modus operandi of migrant smuggling networks who operate the EU-UK route. From January to mid-December 2020, law enforcement authorities of the countries in question registered more than 1,300 incidents involving more than 15,000 irregular migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.

In 2020, more than 23,000 new arrivals of irregular migrants were registered to the Canary Islands, almost a 10-fold increase compared to the same period in 2019. The peak was recorded during October and November 2020, with 8,506 and 9,662 new arrivals, respectively. Migrant smugglers played a significant role in this long and risky crossing from the region, to the Canary Islands, by organizing sea crossings in fishing boats (called cayucos) and creating new synergies and opportunities such as the trade of cayucos to Senegal produced in Gambia at lower manufacturing prices.

On using digital tools, the report says: “Social media platforms and messaging communications (often encrypted) are widely used by smugglers to coordinate and communicate before and during smuggling operations. Such channels are also used to advertise services and fraudulent documents. The use of mobile applications has been detected to share maps with pre-established routes and safer transit points along borders, with live sharing of secure places to obtain logistic support during the journey (accommodation, water, food). Closed groups in social media and communication applications are particularly popular among document forgers and suppliers. In addition, burner smartphone applications are used by smugglers, enabling the random creation and use of temporary virtual phone numbers.”

Fraudulent documents are multi-purpose criminal tools, the report says, and each document can be used repeatedly to support different criminal activities. Identity documents are the most commonly traded type of fraudulent document: 35% of the documents reported to Europol were identity cards, followed by passports (31%), driving licenses (15%) and residence permits (7%). Most reported misused identity cards were of Romanian, Greek and Italian origin and the most misused reported passports were Italian, Greek and Israeli. Most documents are counterfeit or forged, while misused genuine documents have been reported with a smaller incidence.

Different EU countries have reported cases of exploitation of pregnant women and the subsequent sale of newborn babies. The modus operandi in general involves the recruitment of women to act as surrogate mothers, sometimes via the internet. The women are then medically treated for increased fertility and receive in-vitro fertilization in specialized clinics. Towards the end of the pregnancy, they are brought into the EU or to another EU country for childbirth and registration of the child. The children are then either sold with fraudulent documentation for illegal adoption, or the fatherhood is claimed fraudulently at registration of the newborns, and the supposed fathers take the newborns with them to yet another country.

The comprehensive 30-page report has a whole lot more in it, and we’d urge you to read it for more information.