The issue of trust is a paramount consideration with respect to any business relationship, particularly when dealing with a prospective or current client only by telephone and/or by e-mail communication.

Both domestic and international investigations are often undertaken under circumstances where it is either not feasible, desirable or possible for a client to meet personally with the investigator.

If fact, the situation is little different when a personal meeting can and does occur between both parties.

Prospective and current clients in both situations often express concern about the validity or accuracy of information that a private investigator or agency may be asked to obtain and provide to them.

In other words, the client is anxious whether the private investigator will provide valid and accurate information or whether the investigator will simply defraud the client by taking their money and provide fake or fabricated information. After all, the very reason a client engages a private investigator is to obtain information that the client has determined – correctly or incorrectly - cannot otherwise be found by other means.

The vast majority of information  that a private investigator is able to provide to a client is, in fact, raw data obtained from a third-party source.

Third-party data is information obtained from records or other sources that the private investigator does not maintain or control and that the investigator did not personally collect or develop in the original instance.

Most information that a private investigator is able to obtain and provide to a client is raw third-party data in the form of, at best, a photocopy or electronic copy of original data or is otherwise, a summary of raw data provided verbally by a confidential informant, “whistleblower” or other human source who may, in fact, be unaware – by virtue of a pretext or otherwise – that he or she is providing confidential data to an investigator.

A confidential informant, “whistleblower” and other human source of raw, third-party data is an extremely valuable individual and the identity of these persons can never be disclosed.

Very little original (first-party) data is obtained and disclosed by a private investigator except to the extent the investigator personally collects such information by virtue of video or still photography, an interview or questionnaire or that consists of some item of a tangible or ‘real’ nature that happens to come into the possession of the investigator by consent or following a physical search that results in the finding of the item.

Raw, third-party data also may be of limited usefulness and should normally be referenced or used in a timely manner. Some data, like address information, a telephone number or financial account information often changes with time. Like certain kinds of food, some information has a limited ‘shelf life’ and should be considered to have a ‘best before’ date label.

If a client or lawyer does not use whatever raw, third-party information that has been requested or provided in a timely manner, but instead delays proceedings until after the information has altered, i.e., until after the address, telephone number or account information has been changed, suspended, transferred or cancelled, neither the client or the lawyer can legitimately complain that the information is fake or fraudulent or that the private investigator is guilty of fraud. Rather, the client and/or the lawyer is more properly guilty of inexperience, negligence and/or incompetence.

The answer to such a situation is not to direct accusations at the source of the information but rather to simply request updated data with respect to the matter in question.

Raw, third-party data can be considered to be a frozen entity similar to ice cream.

Much of it, like ice cream removed from a freezer, begins to change, morph or ‘melt’ over time into something other than what was originally disclosed.
 
If someone who purchased an ice cream cone, for reasons of distraction or otherwise, allows his or her ice cream cone to melt away on a hot day to the point that it can no longer be consumed or is unable or unwilling to consume the ice cream while it is still in an edible state, that person can hardly accuse the ice cream vendor of fraud and demand his money back. Rather, the delay or negligence is that of the ice cream purchaser, not the vendor.

In virtually all cases where information is to be used in a legal proceeding, it is necessary for such raw, third-party data to be independently validated by the production of the original record or document, usually as a result of a Court Order or Subpoena directed to an individual or representative of the relevant entity or institution holding the original record or document requiring that representative to produce the item(s) at the judicial proceeding in question.

On occasion, a Certified Copy of the original record or document may be accepted, but, in any case, it is the original document that meets the standard of the Best Evidence Rule, not a mere copy of a record or a verbal summary of raw data obtained from a third-party source.

In other situations, a client or a client’s lawyer may fail or refuse, deliberately or negligently, to validate raw, third-party data as required. Further, even if a Court Order or Subpoena is obtained, the entity or institution holding the original document or record may deceitfully fail or refuse to honour the Court Order or Subpoena.

For clear information regarding deceit and evasion by financial institutions, it is only necessary to query the internet for numerous government and media reports concerning the dispute - widely reported in 2008 and 2009 - between Swiss banking giant UBS and the United States IRS with respect to 52,000 American bank accounts hidden by UBS in Switzerland.

Recently, a prospective male client, who refused to identify himself and who claimed to work for Canada Customs and Immigration, contacted Internal Affairs and asked for assistance in locating an individual who he claimed owed him $10,000.00. This prospective client claimed that he had a court judgment for that amount. He advised that he only needed to locate the individual concerned in order to execute the judgment. This prospective client advised that he had obtained four different addresses for this individual from various police officers he knew but that all of these addresses were erroneous.

He claimed that he was unable to use his own Federal government sources to find this individual. When this prospective client was advised that Internal Affairs could assist him to locate the individual in question, he asked, “If the information you obtain is wrong, can I charge you with fraud?”

At this point, this prospective client was advised in no uncertain terms that Internal Affairs was not in the business of knowingly or deliberately providing a client with false information and the nature of raw, third-party information was then explained to him. He was advised that an Internal Affairs investigator was in no different position than any of the police officers that this prospective client claimed had provided him with erroneous information.

Presumably, the police officers had merely provided this prospective client with whatever information happened to be within police records or driver’s licence and vehicle registration files accessible to them. This prospective client was asked whether he intended to charge the four police officers with fraud? He did not reply.

If the information accessible to these police officers was fabricated and had been falsely provided deliberately by an individual to avoid detection or there was some clerical or administrative error that resulted in false information being provided to the police officers, the officers could hardly be held responsible for the validity of raw, address information obtained from some third party or database that they had every reason to assume to be valid and accurate.

This prospective client, who claimed to be a Canada Customs and Immigration officer, was asked to submit his request for assistance to Internal Affairs by e-mail and provide verifiable identification. No formal request was ever submitted. It appeared, both at the time and subsequently, that his telephone query was a clumsy pretext for the purpose of obtaining information for some disingenuous purpose. Nevertheless, this call, and other more legitimate enquiries, serve to illustrate the problematic nature of raw, third-party data obtained and provided by a private investigator.

Just because a client and/or their counsel are unable, fail or refuse to validate raw, third-party data does not mean that the information itself is false or fraudulent. It is more likely that the client and/or their counsel are simply inexperienced, negligent, incompetent or too egotistical and defensive to take advice and direction from those who have better sources as well as greater technical knowledge and expertise than themselves.

‘Shooting the Messenger’ is often a preferred method employed to disguise personal inexperience, incompetence, negligence and/or deceit.

SERVICE REQUEST • INTRODUCTION • INFORMATION • BIOGRAPHY • SERVICES • SURVEILLANCE • ASSET INVESTIGATION • EMPLOYMENT SCREENING • TRACKING DEVICE INVESTIGATION • MONEY LAUNDERING • FEES • FEE SCHEDULE • HIRING A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR • PRIVACY POLICY • FORMS & APPLICATIONS

HOME PAGE • CONTACT US • LINKS

Toronto Private Detectives | Toronto Surveillance | Toronto Fraud Investigations
Toronto Criminal Investigations | Toronto Theft Investigations