U.S. brings fraud charges against firm that vetted Snowden
Source: Reuters
BY SAKTHI PRASAD
Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:45am EST
(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department accused United States Investigations Services (USIS), the largest private provider of security checks for the government, of bilking millions of dollars through improper background verifications.
USIS, which also vetted Edward Snowden before he leaked documents about U.S. spying efforts, has a contract with the U.S. government since 1996 to vet individuals seeking employment with federal agencies. Such background checks include investigative fieldwork on each application.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a court filing on Wednesday that between March 2008 and September 2012, USIS filed at least 665,000 flawed background checks, which was about 40 percent of the total submissions.
A former employee of USIS filed a whistleblower lawsuit in July 2011 under the False Claims Act, which lets people collect rewards for blowing the whistle on fraud against the government.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-usis-idUSBREA0M0BD20140123
Little Star
(17,055 posts)security checks to private corporations.
SamKnause
(13,043 posts).............between March 2008 and September 2012..................................
Was it anyone's job to periodically keep a check on United States Investigations Services ?????
The government is not keeping an eye on corporations.
They have been given free reign and the government pretends to be shocked, as they continue to siphon billions of tax dollars out of the budget.
Our "esteemed job creators" routinely turn out to be crooks and cons.
Our "esteemed politicians" routinely pass legislation aiding and abetting our "esteemed job creators".
What a farce.
I have seen this dog and pony show over and over.
Today's difference is how blatant and in your face it is.
Pay a fine and off to the next unsuspecting mark.
Why a way to govern.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)It is a farce, and I'm sick of it.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Why don't they "seem" to know anything about the long History of "bribery" after they graduate is beyond comprehension...
It's not like it's anything "new" to mankind, is it not?
SamKnause
(13,043 posts)college.
I did graduate high school.
I educated myself watching documentaries, listening to speeches, listening to lectures, listening to debates, reading papers from around the globe, reading books, and doing research.
The internet is an awesome tool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Independent media has also opened my eyes.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)that said, I was thinking of the "true" Academics who get hired or elected to positions in governments.
I mean, if most of them (the elected ones) have to take most of their time fundraising, while they don't have enough left to actually READ the bills.... don't they just at least "feel" something is very wrong here?
I mean, don't they have maybe just a beginning of a clue that they might be swimming in a sea of bribes??
SamKnause
(13,043 posts)I think the majority of them are corrupt.
I think the majority of them are only interested in power and wealth.
They really are despicable people and not to be admired.
They change parties, they get caught in lies, and they say hypocritical things over and over.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the suit has nothing to do with Snowden ... the period covered in the complaint is well before snowden was hired on by Booz Allen Hamilton and cites to specific defects in USIS' screening practices.
But that said ... the title does guarantee (on DU) that people will read the story!
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)vetted more than one time. I believe there was an earlier background check that had Snowden as questionable and a newer one that had him as okay. I was reading something a few weeks ago about someone who had disclosed secrets and they had a similar situation. One of their background checks (one performed by the gov't) had the person as no hire and then a few years later passed with a different firm. Seriously questionable vetting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the Government will take this as a cautionary tale and bring the vetting back in-house ... it would be more "trust-worthy" and cheaper, to boot.