REVIEWING AND VERIFYING DOCUMENTS

What follows are guidelines for examining documents in either elec-tronic or physical form. Again, a copy or elecelec-tronic version of a docu-ment is acceptable as preliminary information, but before a critical business decision occurs, the original of the document must undergo review, or independent sources must confirm its content. Here are the items to consider in review:

1. In electronic documents, check the document for metadata. (See Chapter 1 on “Metadata.) Look at inconsistencies between what the metadata says and the document’s text. Evaluate oral state-ments made by the presenter in light of the metadata. If the doc-ument is an original composition according to the presenter, but the metadata indicates other authorship, then warning alarms should go off.

2. In reviewing electronic documents, check to see if templates or exemplars for that type of document are available on the Web.

(Recall the discussion of drivers’ license and other identity card exemplars in the section, “Identity Document Counterfeiting.”) If an electronic document closely mimics the exemplar, with only the dates, names, and address different, ask for the original.

Also, keep in mind many legal documents, ranging from Power of Attorney to deeds, have templates and exemplars available online, making their forgery quite easy.

3. Is it possible to confirm the content of the electronic document online? Researching names, addresses, and other identifiers through a Web search engine is one approach. Examining the archive of a Web site is another method. Web site archives are available through http://www,archive.org.

4. Check for a digital watermark in the document if you know that a genuine electronic document has one.

5. Check with the issuing authority or with a recognized guide-book as in the case of drivers’ licenses.

6. With paper documents, check the paper for a watermark.

7. Are there other anti-forgery technologies in use on the paper document such as laid lines, color prismatic printing, void pan-tographs, warning bands, high-resolution borders, holograms, or microprinting? Documents, where the risk of forgery is a sig-nificant factor, such as birth certificates, automobile titles, ne-gotiable instruments, and drivers’ licenses or passports, should have one or more of these countermeasures in use.

8. If the document contains a considerable amount of information as in a legal document, is it possible to contact sources refer-enced in the document for confirmation of the content?

9. Are the dates in the document consistent?

10. Are names, descriptions, and other facts in the document inter-nally consistent?

11. Are persons or businesses cited in the document verifiable by cross-checking them using a Web search engine, or by public record checking, or by telephone calling those cited?

12. Are the assets and liabilities listed in a financial statement or document verifiable? For example, if vehicles are listed as assets, can they be found in the motor vehicle registration data-base?

13. Are exemplars available online for the identification docu-ments? What does the comparison tell you about the genuine-ness of the document?

14. Are document templates available online for the legal docu-ments? What does the comparison tell you about the genuine-ness of the documents?

15. If you are skeptical about the validity of financial documents, arrange for a review by a forensic accountant.

16. Check with the issuing financial institution when you have ques-tions about the genuineness of a negotiable instrument.

AN EXERCISE

When forgers make mistakes, those errors fall into these categories:

mistakes in content, errors in form, and inferior physical quality. Anyone can download the template for a legal document from the Internet, but turning it into a convincing forgery requires a degree of mastery over con-tent. Errors in form happen when the forger does little research on what the actual genuine document should look like. “Near misses” simply will not cut it, and they are the mark of a real amateur. If the physical forgery cannot match the genuine document in quality, then a knowl-edgeable examiner will spot the forgery right away. Very rarely will a forger hit the mark in all three areas. When he or she does accomplish that feat, it is the trademark of a real craftsman, albeit a rogue one.

This exercise concentrates on reviewing content in a questionable document. The forger seeks to lower his automobile insurance rate by submitting to his insurance agent an altered police report. In the origi-nal report, the investigating police officer has the forger as the at-fault party in an automobile accident. After obtaining the original report from the police department, the forger scans the two-page document into his desktop publishing program.

The first page of the document is the standard front sheet for a Texas Motor Vehicle Accident Report. Here the forger changes a few details on the form to indicate that the other party was at fault. The second page, the supplemental sheet, is the location for the investigating offi-cer’s narrative. On this page, the forger, Carl Jaspers, needs to exercise his creativity. He crafts the following two paragraphs to replace the police officer’s narrative:

This two-vehicle collision occurred at the intersection of Ruther and Cross streets at 8 p.m. The intersection is controlled by a traffic light. The conditions were nighttime darkness, but street lights pro-vided normal city lighting, and the weather was clear. Carl Jaspers was northbound on Ruther and Peter Jackson was westbound on Cross. Mr. Jaspers stated at the scene he had the green light prior to the collision. (The traffic light appeared to be functioning normally.) An independent witness, Jeremy reader, DOB: 4-12-61, of 1219 Westheimer in Houston , Texas 77010, (713-555-5555) confirmed Mr. Jaspers’ account. The witness was at the Quicky Fuel gas sta-tion at the corner of Cross and Ruther and saw the collision as he was fueling his vehicle. Mr. Jackson was cited for disregarding a traf-fic control signal.

Based upon content alone, the narrative sounds plausible. (Obvi-ously, we have not supplied an actual telephone number for the witness to eliminate the possibility of publishing a private number.) Jaspers, however, made several mistakes. Can you suggest some avenues of in-quiry to discover them?

The first problem with the narrative is that it does not include a ment from Mr. Jackson. Normally, a police officer would include state-ments from all involved drivers in a supplemental accident narrative.

Jaspers did not want to put words in Jackson’s mouth that he could re-pudiate later with a telephone call if someone contacted him. What is missing from a document is sometimes just as important as what it con-tains. Be aware of omissions that do not make sense when reviewing a document, whether in electronic or physical form.

Jaspers makes two factual errors in the statement. Ruther is actually a one-way street running from north to south, so Jaspers could not have been northbound. He got his directions turned around when trying to adapt the original report’s language to suit the needs of the forgery. A city street map, available on the Web, would uncover this inconsistency.

There is a Quicky Fuel station in the area, but it is not at the actual in-tersection. Rather, it is about one and a half blocks away, so anyone at the gas station would have had a problem witnessing the collision. A Web search engine check for Quicky Fuel stations in the city would reveal the various locations.

The witness information is pure fabrication. The zip code for 1219 Westheimer in Houston, Texas is 77006, not 77010, and 1219 West-heimer does not appear to be an address associated with a building or

a residence. If we imagine the telephone number to be a real one, dial-ing the number reveals a number not in service, and runndial-ing the tele-phone number on Google comes up with nothing. Finally, running Jeremy Reader with DOB of 4-12-61 comes up with nothing on Google.

Running the same information on a public records database on the Web yields nothing in Texas.

A call to the Municipal Court reveals no ticket on file for Mr. Jackson for the date of the accident. However, checking under Mr. Jaspers’

name reveals a ticket for the same offense on the date of the accident.

Obviously, this exercise is a simple one to demonstrate that content in documents is not that difficult to check, and content can be a major stumbling block for a forger because it takes time and considerable effort in some cases to acquire the necessary knowledge.

Consider, for example, if someone wanted to forge a handwritten letter from Shakespeare to a theatrical friend. The difficulties would be immense. First, one would have to obtain paper from the period and inks appropriate to the time period. This would be the physical chal-lenge. Obtaining the materials would be very difficult to be sure, but possible. Marketing an electronic image of the document may be feasi-ble on the Internet. Yet, at some point, the physical characteristics of the forgery would have to pass expert review.

More difficult would be the form of the letter. The forger would have to understand the conventions and style of Elizabethan correspondence, including spelling, word usage, and the scripting of the letters. The forger would also need to copy successfully William Shakespeare’s handwriting. Exemplars of his signature exist, but creating a script would be an immense undertaking requiring remarkable skill.

If these problems were not enough, a forger would have profound content issues. He or she would have to understand Shakespeare’s vo-cabulary and style, and most difficult, have Shakespeare’s understand-ing of his times, the Elizabethan stage, and the slang and colloquialisms of his era. This level of knowledge simply does not happen after read-ing a paperback book or two on Shakespeare’s life.

Content is always difficult, especially when the document has a nar-rative structure or a number of interrelated details. Pay close attention to content details in reviewing any document used for a major business decision. Look for errors and inconsistencies, and obtain confirmation of the contents from independent sources whenever possible. (See Table 10-1: Spotting Forgeries.)

Table 10.1: Spotting Forgeries

Characteristic Details

Metadata (Electronic documents) Inconsistent authorship, inconsistent dates. Good for spotting the use of templates.

Content and Facts Confirmable by other sources? Any internal inconsistencies?

Templates and Exemplars Online Look for them being copied from online and the forger just filling in the blanks.

Paper Document Countermeasures • Laid lines

• Color prismatic printing

• Void Pantographs

• Warning bands

• High-resolution borders

• Holograms

• Microprinting

Plastic Cards • Matching account numbers against a database

• Microprinting

• Holograms

• Embossed characteristics

• Tamper-evident signature panels

• Ultraviolet inks

• Magnetic stripes

Issuing Agency Guidelines Obtain the training and information on how to spot a forgery.

Appendix