Daniel Burke (right) - 2019 AB Insurance Industry Investigation of the Year Winner, pictured receiving his award from Award Sponsor, Stuart Guthrie (left) Co-CEO of Polonious.

Nominee: Senior Investigator, Daniel Burke, of Adjuster Corp Pty Ltd
Nominated by Insurer: Underwriting Agencies of Australia (UAA)

As an International Underwriting Agency, our board takes great pleasure in having the opportunity to nominate Senior Investigator Daniel Burke in the category of ‘Insurance Investigator of the Year’. Our nomination is in appreciation of Daniel’s expert and comprehensive investigative techniques, which resulted in the recovery of insured excavators, including attachments (insured value $AUD180,550.00) stolen within Australia. Furthermore, Daniel’s investigation detected additional criminal offences linked to the theft of insured excavators including multiple burglaries, with the investigation linking a senior Claimant employee (Branch Manager) as a co-conspirator in an organised property crime syndicate.

This nomination acknowledges Daniel’s skills in dealing with both internal and external stakeholders relevant to the claim, while demonstrating the very highest level of professional expertise; this allowed for the identification of offenders, location and recovery of excavators and detection of risk management deficiencies within the Claimant business. Daniel was able to produce a comprehensive factual Brief of Evidence, which would enable police to successfully acquire a Court-issued Search Warrant, locate and seize stolen excavators and deliver criminal charges against correctly identified offenders – all of whom were linked to multiple criminal offences. During the investigation, Daniel strategically planned, led and coordinated a multifaceted operation, which involved numerous stakeholders. Throughout the investigation, Daniel concisely communicated with senior commercial and government sector professionals to ensure the investigation achieved the most effective outcome.

The Claim
On Friday 20 July 2018, the insured suffered a burglary at their secure compound, which resulted in the theft of multiple excavators and attachments with an insurable gross value totalling $AUD180,550.00. The theft allegedly occurred a short time after 6:30pm, directly after the Branch Manager had locked the front gates and departed the area. On Saturday, 21 July 2018, the Branch Manager allegedly attempted remote login to CCTV cameras for a random security check, at which time he identified the CCTV cameras were disabled. The Claimant compound was closed and unmanned over the weekend period which served as the reason why the Branch Manager performed a random security check via CCTV cameras.

The Branch Manager subsequently instructed a junior supervisor to attend the compound and conduct a physical inspection. Shortly after, the junior supervisor reported that the compound had been burglarised by way of forced entry, with the perimeter security fencing and site power supply having been cut; he also identified that a number of excavators and their attachments had been stolen. The Branch Manager immediately notified Head Office before attending the compound, and subsequently reported the incident to police. On 23 July 2018, a claim for the theft of excavators was lodged with insurers via the Claimant’s Insurance Broker.

Due to the quantum of excavators stolen, along with a review of the risk, we appointed Daniel to undertake a full investigation in order to factually confirm the circumstances surrounding the loss.

Preliminary Enquires
At the investigation’s onset, Daniel undertook a comprehensive review of the insured’s policy and claims history along with criminal activity in surrounding suburbs. This was undertaken to establish fraud indicators, disclosure issues and the prevalence of similar offences or active offenders targeting the area. Thereafter, Daniel undertook physical inspection of the theft site which established entry and exit points, aspects of CCTV camera operation and site security measures (along with establishing potential witnesses); amongst other prominent evidentiary findings, this resulted in cultivation of what would become a key witness at a neighbouring business.

Initial enquiries were conducted as follows:

• Site of loss inspection – identified a defined modus operandi (‘inside-job’) confirming offenders had knowledge of CCTV camera operation including how to disable the system without being detected.
• Review of GPS data – GPS devices were fitted to the stolen machines, however they were quickly located by the offenders, removed and left abandoned on the ground at the Claimant compound – Daniel requested all GPS data for the incident date be retrieved for his review, with this process yielding pertinent evidentiary results.
• Witnesses – canvassed neighbouring businesses, successfully identifying a witness who stated his business had been subject to a burglary on the evening of Sunday 22 July 2018, whereby the only property stolen was the CCTV camera hard drive. It was established that the CCTV camera at the neighbouring business directly faced the site of forced entry at the Claimant’s compound. It was also established the Branch Manager from the claimant business had made a phone call to the business owner enquiring about any possible CCTV footage on Saturday, 21 July 2018. At this time, the Claimant’s Branch Manager was informed that CCTV footage would be available on the morning of Monday, 23 July 2018 when the office was reopened, whereby the CCTV hard drive could be accessed.
• Background checks – extensive background checks were undertaken on all employees working at the Claimant’s compound. This included briefings with the CEO of the Claimant business and close review of personnel files.
• Operation Action Planning – Daniel identified key persons of interest, potential motives and linked offences occurring in the immediate area. He further compiled and disseminated a detailed ‘Op Order’ including specific investigative steps and resources required for a successful investigative outcome.

Key Stakeholder Communication
The Claimant business is a large-scale national company, which operates by way of hiring or leasing mobile plant and
machinery through numerous locations spread across Australia, therefore the management structure is layered and
comprehensive. We were extremely impressed at Daniel’s ability to leverage the Claimant’s Broker to facilitate meetings with the CEO, and subsequently negotiate a full management ‘buy-in’ for the investigative action required. Daniel’s communication during this process was critical and expertly executed; he exhibited a tempered and precise manner while presenting his investigative plan which would target senior employees at the Claimant business – who were, at the time, believed to be ‘above suspicion’. Daniel was able to successfully broker this outcome by concisely presenting his preliminary evidence in a professional, confident and resolute manner while at the same time delivering expert and insightful advice on criminal behaviour including modus operandi pertinent to ‘inside jobs’.

Investigative Strategies

• Telco Investigations

Daniel instructed the Claimant CEO to covertly supply all mobile phone records for senior employees working at the
compound. The phone records were closely examined, and a number of ‘suspect’ phone calls were identified requiring further enquiries. These ‘suspect’ calls included the Branch Manager making several phone calls to a cell phone, while the Branch Manager was located within the cellular tower suburb of the Claimant compound on the evening of Sunday, 22 July 2018 between 6pm and 7:30pm. The phone records further identified that the Branch Manager had called the owner of a neighbouring business on Saturday, 21 July at 12:00pm (reported) and then again on the evening of Sunday, 22 July 2018 at 7:00pm (not reported), with this particular phone call being made from within the cellular tower location of the Claimant’s compound. Daniel’s earlier enquiries confirmed the same neighbouring business was burglarised on the evening of Sunday 22 July 2018, with the only property stolen being the aforementioned CCTV hard drive.

• GPS tracking devices

While the excavator GPS tracking devices were disabled and discarded within the compound, Daniel requested all GPS data from the devices for the period leading up to their deactivation. Daniel’s detailed review of the data confirmed GPS information had been recorded when the machines were started (ignition on) at 6:24pm on Friday, 20 July 2018, prior to being disabled. This key piece of evidence allowed Daniel to establish the precise time of theft which contradicted the Branch Manager’s version, in that, he had secured and departed the compound at 6:30pm.

• Incident Re-enactment

Daniel established that the offenders entered the site by way of cutting through security fencing at the top of the secure
compound, before making their way to a site power box where they disabled all compound power (including the CCTV
cameras). The offenders then progressed on foot through the compound before arriving at two excavators parked at the front gates of the compound. The offenders started the excavators and located the hidden GPS devices, before disabling and discarding them. The offenders then used bolt cutters to sever a padlocked chain securing the front gates, after which time they removed the excavators from the compound by way of tilt tray trucks, which were positioned in wait at the front gate entrance.

The incident re-enactment conducted by Daniel established it would take offenders (with no knowledge of the compound and GPS device location) at least six minutes to arrive at the excavators and disable the GPS trackers. It was noted that the Branch Manager had reportedly left the compound at 6:30pm, and Daniel’s review of phone records confirmed he made a phone call which bounced off the local cellular tower at 6:33pm.

The re-enactment confirmed the offenders entered the compound at around 6:18pm (or earlier) before starting (GPS tracker – ‘ignition on’) the excavators at 6:24pm. The Branch Manager’s initial version of events and phone call records placed him at the compound up until 6:30pm, indicating he was present when offenders entered and manoeuvred through the compound.

• Interview – Branch Manager

Daniel’s preliminary investigation determined the burglary and subsequent theft of insured excavators was likely the result of an ‘inside job’ and further the burglary of the neighbouring business was a linked offence committed by the same offenders in order to eradicate CCTV footage.

As a result, Daniel centred initial investigations around the activities of the Branch Manager before, during and after both burglary events. It should be noted, the Claimant CEO had initially advised Daniel the Branch Manager was well paid, earning $170,000 per annum, and was a trusted and hardworking employee. We were impressed at how Daniel remained resolute in pursuing the Branch Manager based on his skilled interpretation of evidence gathered.

The key outcome of the electronically recorded interview, which included an interview phase followed by non-confrontational interrogation, was that it locked the Branch Manager to a version which was inconsistent with background facts established during Daniel’s preliminary investigation. The Branch Manager was subsequently caught in a number of incriminating lies which further implicated him in the staged burglary and theft of Claimant excavators along with the subsequent burglary of a neighbouring business in order to steal and destroy CCTV evidence. During the two-hour recorded interview, no formal admissions were made, however an acknowledgment was made by the Branch Manager insofar as the body of evidence implicating him in the offence. More importantly, Daniel elicited very prominent information, which subsequently identified a second person of interest and opened the investigation to further key lines of enquiry.

• Suspect Identification

During initial telco enquiries, it was established that a ‘suspect’ cell-phone number was contacted a number of times by the Branch Manager in and around the time the neighbouring business was burglarised on the evening of 22 July 2018. Daniel subsequently placed this cell phone number through database enquiries, which linked the number to a residential address, however this failed to identify a name. Daniel briefed the Claimant CEO of developments and provided him the ‘suspect’ cell number, requesting that internal databases at the Claimant business be checked for a match; these checks revealed the cell phone number belonged to a customer who dealt exclusively with the Branch Manager at the centre of Daniel’s investigation.

Daniel placed the customer’s name through open source intelligence gathering systems, which revealed an extensive criminal history, including a recent six year period of incarceration for serious violence and property related crimes.
At this point, Daniel utilised industry-leading, desktop aerial imaging technology to facilitate visual inspection of the address linked to this person of interest. These aerial images revealed a number of excavators positioned behind security fencing at the suspect address. Further, open online checks into the person of interest’s credit history and property ownership encumbrances, revealed no obvious financial means to facilitate acquisition of such property.

• Covert Measures

Daniel subsequently instructed a surveillance operative to attend the suspect address and conduct a spot inspection to identify the type of excavators which were stored behind the security fencing. This resulted in physical identification of excavators, which directly resembled those stolen from the Claimant business, however no positive identification could take place due to the excavators being locked and secured within private property surrounded by 6-foot security enclosed fencing.

Daniel immediately actioned and controlled a private surveillance operation while he communicated with specialist police detectives. The surveillance operation spanned a two-week period, and its coordination was complex due to the geographical location of the residence which was positioned adjacent a busy Islamic Mosque. The surveillance operation successfully identified additional excavators, numerous persons of interest along with vehicle registrations frequenting the suspect address.

During this period, Daniel was able to supply police with a comprehensive Brief of Evidence, which enabled their acquisition of a Court-issued Search Warrant. Daniel’s comprehensive Brief of Evidence also linked the offenders to similar offences committed within the immediate area, with this information having been sourced through published police statistics and other known insurance claims.

• Location of Offenders & Excavators

Police executed a Court-issued Search Warrant, which resulted in location of the Claimants property. It also resulted in the nominated suspects being taken into police custody subject to multiple offences. The Claimant business was able to end employment with their Branch Manager who was also taken into police custody as a person of interest.

Police initially seized the Claimant’s property for evidentiary purposes before Daniel coordinated return to insurers. This
investigation identified the perpetrators of an insurable loss with a gross insurable value of $180,550.00, including the police seizure of other high value property and machines. Of further significant importance is that the investigation detected a senior manager at the Claimant business who presented as a serious ongoing risk to the Claimant business and insurers.

• Third Party Admissions & Liability

The Claimant CEO and Insurance Brokerage personally acknowledged the exceptional work and commitment undertaken by Daniel. They were extremely grateful and noted the professionalism of the investigation conducted by Daniel, and further were shocked that a senior manager had been linked to a serious crime committed against the business (whereby he was previously identified as being “above suspicion”). The Claimant CEO acknowledged the involvement of an employee and accepted his company had potential liability in the loss event.

• Claim Outcome

This investigation was executed by Daniel using expert investigative techniques, planning and impeccable attention to detail. The Insurance Brokerage, the claimant CEO and Police gave Daniel’s investigation the highest praise. All aspects of the investigation were undertaken in compliance with the Policy of Insurance, Insurance Contract Act and the Supplier Agreement subject to external contractors. At all times, we were incredibly impressed at how Daniel expertly briefed all stakeholders while leveraging these entities to provide resources beneficial to the investigation.

• Overview

Having seen hundreds of insurance investigations, we respectfully consider that Daniel’s investigation demonstrated the
highest level of specialised expertise in strategically executing a timely yet complex investigation, which required detailed planning, intelligence acquisition, coordination of various stakeholders and precise implementation. Daniel’s ability to manage all facets of this investigation including forensic examination, recorded interviews, witness cultivation, scene examination, telco tactics, surveillance coordination and police intervention ensured a highly successful outcome. We feel Daniel should be applauded for his diligent and unwavering pursuit of evidence through impeccable planning, demonstrated investigative skills, tenacity and precision of operational execution.

It should be emphasised that Daniel’s investigation not only achieved an exceptional result for UAA and its security QBE, but it also assisted the Claimant’s business in identifying a senior-level employee who presented as a serious ongoing threat to the Claimant business and Insurers if left undetected. In this regard, Daniel’s efforts showcased the ability to ‘value add’ by supporting and assisting Claimants in identifying and removing serious internal risks. Furthermore, Daniel was able to link additional machinery thefts to the suspects which are now the subject of ongoing police investigations.

The key outcomes from Daniel’s investigation include:

• Modius operandi correctly identified as an ‘inside job’;
• Linked criminal offenders correctly identified;
• Location of stolen property correctly identified;
• Full Brief of Evidence supplied to Police enabling acquisition of a Court-issued Search Warrant with sufficiency of evidence to pursue the offenders;
• Offenders taken into Police custody subject to multiple burglaries along with theft of the Claimant’s excavators and attachments, gross insurable value $180,550.00 AUD;
• Offenders linked to other similar offences which are not subject to ongoing police investigations;
• Senior Manager responsible for managing millions of dollars’ worth of machinery, linked to multiple offences;
• Internal risk deficiencies identified within Claimant business subject to staff monitoring and compound security measures; and
• Excellent feedback from insurance Broker and Claimant business ensuring long term retention of a lucrative client.

Formal Commendation
It is our view that this investigation demonstrated a tremendous level of incisive investigative skills, with Daniel delivering all stakeholders clever authoritative knowledge on property-related crime methodologies, coupled with an ability to logistically plan and tactfully execute a complex, multifaceted operation, while ensuring a seamless and successful outcome for Insurers, Brokers, Claimant and police and further maintaining a high level of integrity, ethics and confidentiality with all parties involved.

We believe Daniel was responsible for engineering and delivering an exceptional insurance investigation. We consider this investigation demonstrates leading edge investigative techniques and is extremely deserving of our nomination for this award. We unreservedly endorse Daniel for all insurance investigations which require sheer tenacity, ingenuity and professionalism.

We believe that Daniel’s investigation offers confidence and positive reassurance to the wider insurance industry of the
inherent value in engaging auto theft investigators to undertake these types of investigations on behalf of insurers.

Submitted by:

Michelle Morrissey
Regional Claims Manager,
Underwriting Agencies of Australia