Quatloos! > Investment
Fraud > Viaticals
Fraud > Exhibit:
Viaticals Fraud > Grand
Jury Report
Report on Fraud in the Viatical Industry
February 4, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE
NO. 95,746
FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE
FIFTEENTH STATEWIDE GRAND JURY
I. INTRODUCTION
We, the members of the Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury, are continuing the
work of prior Statewide Grand Juries investigating insurance fraud committed
within the State of Florida.
In the initial part of our work, we turn our focus to a new area by examining
the viatical industry and the fraud occurring therein. We have heard the testimony
of regulators from the Department of Insurance (DOI), investigators from DOI's
Division of Insurance Fraud (DIF), representatives from the life insurance
industry, and finally from witnesses who work or have worked directly in the
viatical industry.
To date we have returned three Indictments charging seven individuals and
one corporation with 155 felony counts relating to criminal fraud in the viatication
of life insurance policies belonging to the terminally ill. The face value
of these policies is approximately $12.7 million.
Our investigation revealed what law enforcement officials, insurance regulators,
and industry observers have been saying for some time. Fraud in the viatical
settlement industry is rampant; as much as 40-50% of the life insurance policies
viaticated by viatical settlement providers may have been procured by fraud.
We, the members of the Statewide Grand Jury, condemn in the strongest possible
terms the rampant fraud in the viatical industry. If this fraud continues unchallenged,
the industry will likely disappear. As a result, one of the most vulnerable
groups in society, the terminally ill, will lose a vital option to mitigate
their financial burdens. The victims of this fraud are not just insurance companies
and their legitimate customers who end up paying as a result of this fraud
through reduced profits and higher premiums. Victims also include investors,
who stand to lose their investment when policies are canceled or lapse.
In this report we address the fraud known as "cleansheeting" (see
Appendix 1). Our investigation will not end with this report nor do we guarantee
there will not be further indictments. We hope that this report will be helpful
to the Florida Legislature, the Department of Insurance, the life insurance
industry, and the viatical industry in trying to fashion remedies to the problems
identified. We hope this report generates attention to this complex and extremely
serious financial crime.
II. BACKGROUND
Historically, some insurance companies have offered an accelerated death benefits
option on their life insurance policies. Usually, this option allows the insured
an opportunity to receive up to 80% of the death benefit at any time within
the last year of the insured's projected life. The remaining 20% is then paid
to the insured's estate.
On the other hand, the business of viatical settlements involves the selling
of a life insurance policy death benefit at less than face value by a terminally
ill person (viator or seller) to a third party (purchaser). This is accomplished
through negotiations between viators and viatical settlement companies, with
the assistance of a viatical settlement broker. The viatical settlement broker
offers the policies to viatical settlement provider companies for bid, with
the highest bidder obtaining the policy for subsequent resale to investors.
The viatical settlement broker receives a percentage commission based on the
sale price. The viatical settlement providers seek investors to buy the viaticated
life insurance policies. Investors may elect to be sole or partial owners of
a policy or may choose to invest in a pool of policies. Upon the death of the
insured, the investor(s) receive the face value of the life insurance policy.
All states, including Florida, have statutes mandating contestability clauses
in life insurance contracts. The contestability period lasts for two (2) years
after the date of policy issuance. During this period of time, the policy may
be rescinded by the insurer for a variety of reasons including fraud in the
application. After the two year period ends, the insurer is obligated to pay
the death benefit, regardless of any fraudulent conduct by the insured in the
application. Because policies viaticated during the contestability period may
be rescinded, they bring a much lower price in the viatical market.
The dollar amount of viaticated policies has skyrocketed in recent years.
In 1990, approximately $80 million worth of life insurance was viaticated.
Last year, it is estimated that $1 billion was viaticated. There are eight
viatical settlement providers licensed in the state of Florida. In 1998, those
eight companies viaticated $548 million worth of life insurance according to
figures provided by the Florida Department of Insurance.
In 1996, in response to the rapid growth of the industry, the Florida Legislature
enacted the Viatical Settlement Code. The code is contained within F.S. §626.991
through and inclusive of F.S. §626.993. The statute has been amended every
year since then. Initially the purpose of the statute was to protect viators
from fraud or abuse. It has since been expanded to cover other fraudulent acts
and protect other parties as well. Last year the legislature enacted F.S. §626.99275
specifically prohibiting viatication of fraudulently procured life insurance
policies. It also specifically prohibited fraudulent conduct in the sale of
viaticated policies.
III. FINDINGS
A. Cleansheeting
Unscrupulous individuals in the viatical industry apparently are not satisfied
in dealing with legitimate policies and actively seek out, encourage, or turn
a blind eye to policies procured by a practice referred to as "cleansheeting",
a form of fraud. "Cleansheeting" is the act of applying for life
insurance and intentionally failing to disclose the applicant's status as terminally
ill. The applicant, or viator, falsely answers some or all of the medical questions
in the negative resulting in a "cleansheeted" application. Most insurance
companies have a policy coverage amount below which they do not require an
applicant to submit to a medical exam or blood test. Those policy coverage
amounts are well known to many insurance agents and brokers who assist and
often encourage viators in committing the fraud. Cleansheeting is an attractive
option for dishonest operators in the viatical business. It not only provides
a much larger number of insurance policies to viaticate, many more than would
be available though legitimate means, it also provides a much higher rate of
return because they can be bought from viators so cheaply. We have learned
through testimony that in a legitimate viatical transaction, the viator usually
receives 50%-70% of the face value of the policy. However, a "cleansheeted" policy
viaticated during the contestable period may offer the viator as little as
10% of the face value because it carries a risk of rescission due to fraud.
After the policy is issued, the viator will sell his policy, sometimes within
weeks, to a viatical settlement provider, often using the services of a broker.
This is referred to as a "wet ink policy" because the ink on the
contract is still "wet" when the policy is sold. The odds against
an individual finding out that he is terminally ill within weeks of buying
a policy are exceedingly high. To see that happen repeatedly within a short
period of time with the same viatical settlement broker or provider is strong
evidence that the broker or provider is well aware that the policies have been "cleansheeted".
Moreover, some viators will take out multiple policies in a short period of
time. Invariably, each policy is from a different insurance company and each
is below the monetary threshold for a blood test or medical exam.
Because viaticating a life insurance policy shortly after issuance should
raise a red flag to the insurance companies, con artists take great pains to
hide the fact that the policy has been viaticated. One way to obscure viatication
is to simply change the beneficiary to an employee or officer of the broker
or settlement provider who has no legitimate interest in the policy. A second
way to hide viatication is to employ a collateral assignment. In legitimate
cases, collateral assignments are used where the insured seeks a loan from
a third party and secures the loan by pledging the death benefits of the policy.
In fraudulent transactions, viators are instructed by providers and brokers
to pledge death benefits but do not receive a loan. Finally, some settlement
providers merely delay reporting that the policy has been viaticated until
the contestability period is over.
We have learned that many parties in the viatical industry wait until the
contestable period is over before dealing in cleansheeted policies because
they believe that knowingly trafficking in these fraudulently procured policies
is not a crime after the contestable period. Some have also gone so far as
to claim that it is not a crime to traffic in these fraudulently acquired policies
even during the contestable period. However, we find that virtually all parties
attempt to hide viatication of fraudulently obtained policies from the insurance
company for as long as possible. This practice is strong evidence that the
parties involved know the policies are tainted and that their actions are illegal.
The impact on the life insurance industry cannot be overstated. Premiums are
based on actuarial tables which are worthless in the face of fraudulent applications.
A company cannot continue to pay out death benefits after collecting premiums
for only a few years, especially when those premiums are based on a grossly
erroneous life expectancy. One small insurer recently discovered that 52 policies
it had issued, each with a face value of $100,000.00, were in fact "cleansheeted".
Had those policies not been rescinded within the contestable period, the losses
would have wiped out over five years of income for that insurer.
Even if the individual insurers can withstand the losses, ultimately the costs
are necessarily passed on to the other policyholders. As always, it is the
law-abiding citizens that ultimately carry the weight of this fraud on their
shoulders.
We have learned that many insurers do not require medical exams, background
checks, or even blood tests. They instead essentially rely on an honor system,
at least below a certain policy face value. The rationale is that the medical
exams and checks would add hundreds of dollars to the policy's premiums and
blood tests are an invasive procedure that many people find objectionable.
Some have said that this problem is one of the insurance industry's own making
because of their refusal to protect themselves from fraud by requiring these
tests in all cases. While we agree that the insurance industry could do more,
we do not believe that the solution is to find fault with the victimized insurance
companies. We disagree with the notion that honest, law-abiding citizens, who
represent the great majority of the insureds, should be saddled with extra
costs and burdensome procedures because of a small minority that refuse to
follow the same laws we all live by. We believe the burden, to the greatest
extent possible, should fall squarely on the shoulders of the ones responsible
for the crimes. Cleansheeting results in life insurance consumers facing higher
premiums, potentially less coverage, and invasive medical procedures.
B. Investor Fraud
The projected life span of the viator is probably the single most important
piece of information for an investor. Yet, there is very little federal or
state regulation concerning disclosures to investors regarding the life span
of a viator. Unfortunately, wherever there are loopholes in the law, the unscrupulous
are tempted to take advantage of them; so it is in the viatical industry.
Viatical settlement proposals contain an estimate of how long a viator is
expected to live. The viatical industry refers to the viator's death as the "maturation
of the policy". This estimate is derived from the Mortality Profile Report
(MPR). Despite their importance, there is no rule or statute regarding the
content or format of these documents. Moreover, there are no minimum requirements
as to who may generate these reports or projections. We have heard testimony
that one viatical settlement provider employed a nurse to write the Mortality
Profile Report. This same settlement provider also used a physician, but his
training was as a plastic surgeon. Finally, we know of no specific requirement
that the qualifications of these putative experts be disclosed, leaving investors
with no way of judging the ability of the person who derived the mortality
figure.
C. Legislative Response
As we previously stated, the Florida Legislature amended the Viatical Settlement
Code last year by enacting F.S. §626.99275 specifically prohibiting viatication
of fraudulently procured life insurance policies. It also specifically prohibited
fraudulent conduct in the sale of viatical policies. While this new statute
was well intended, we are gravely concerned the statute does not carry sufficient
penalties to be effective. Because the legislature did not specify the offense
level for these new crimes, by operation of F.S. §624.15 these offenses
are designated as second degree misdemeanors. We do not believe this penalty
will be sufficient to discourage the fraud, given the amount of money involved.
A defendant charged with viaticating a fraudulently procured insurance policy
worth $100,000 face value, who stands to gain tens of thousands of dollars,
faces the same penalty as a shoplifter who purloins a pack of cigarettes. A
mere sixty days in jail is an encouragement, not a deterrent.
An estimate of the effectiveness of this statute may be drawn from the experience
with F.S. §626.989(b) which requires all insurance licensees to report
suspected fraud to DIF. The penalty for failing to do so is a second degree
misdemeanor. Despite the thousands of obviously fraudulently procured life
insurance policies that have passed through the hands of multiple viatical
settlement brokers, providers and sales agents, DIF has never received a single
referral from the viatical industry reporting such fraud.
D. Investigative Concerns
Pursuant to DOI's investigations, several search warrants have been executed
around the state at the business offices of viatical settlement providers,
viatical settlement brokers, and viatical sales agents. Most of the warrants
have been executed without controversy. One particular search, however, was
held up for some time because of a disagreement as to the applicability of
seemingly conflicting state laws. It has been disclosed to us and reported
in the press that one search had been twice postponed by the courts after the
search warrant was issued. The delays were prompted when the targets of the
search asserted the privacy rights of viators in the medical records held by
the viatical settlement providers. The controversy eventually proceeded to
the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, the investigation was stalled
for months.
We do not presume to pass on the legality of the search nor do we seek to
comment on any part of the trial or appellate courts' opinions. However, we
do find that a review of the medical records of viators held by the settlement
providers, brokers, and sales agents is essential in discovering the fraud
and prosecuting the responsible individuals. It is only by comparing a viator's
medical records to the information provided on the insurance application that
knowledge and intent to defraud can be shown.
In the investigations where search warrants have been successfully executed,
it is precisely those records that showed the fraud by the viators and the
knowing complicity of the viatical settlement brokers, providers, and sales
agents.
It should also be noted that DOI already has the authority, pursuant to F.S. §626.9922,
to examine all records of licensees to determine whether there has been a violation
of law. That would seem to include medical records.
While the state has prevailed in the courts so far, we cannot be assured that
litigation on this point will not continue. In cases where records have been
turned over to a third party for the purpose of engaging in a commercial transaction,
it would seem prudent to clarify the law in this area. Statutes on confidentiality
should not prohibit the discovery of medical records, through subpoenas or
search warrant, nor their subsequent use in a criminal investigation or prosecution.
IV. CONCLUSION
The viatical industry as a whole must take steps to better police itself.
If it does not, it risks ceasing to exist as an industry either by being legislated
out of existence or being pushed out of the market by destroying investor confidence
in its product.
At least one industry trade group has created a code of ethics for its members.
Unfortunately, that code speaks in only general terms regarding criminal conduct.
We are disappointed that several of the unscrupulous practices we have come
to learn are common in the industry are not specifically condemned by the code.
The insurance industry must act by taking a greater role in protecting itself
against fraud. The legislature cannot be expected to do it all, nor can law
enforcement or regulators. If this fraud is to be stopped, it will require
the total commitment of the insurance industry. Insurance companies can and
do aggressively root out fraud. We have seen it done in this and other areas.
The first step, however, is for the industry to wake up to the existence and
scope of the problem. Only recently have some insurance companies come to realize
the extent of their victimization and responded accordingly. We applaud their
aggressive fight against this fraud and encourage their continued efforts.
We hope the rest of the industry will follow the example set by these companies.
We also encourage the Florida Legislature and DOI to continue their vigilance,
for despite their best efforts the fraud continues at an alarming rate. Herewith,
then, are our recommendations.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Legislature:
-
Amend F.S. §626.99275(1) to specifically include brokering a viatical
settlement contract under the circumstances described in that statute.
-
Amend F.S. §626.99275(1) to read that a violation of the statute
in regard to a policy with a face value of more than $300 but less than
$20,000 be a third degree felony; $20,000 or more, but less than $100,000
be a
second
degree felony; and $100,000 or more be a first degree felony, to comport
with the Grand Theft statutes.
-
Amend F.S. §626.99275(2) adding subsection (d) making a violation
of any part of that section a third degree felony.
-
Amend F.S. §626.99235 to require the name, address and qualifications
of the person issuing the Mortality Profile Report and of the person
making the estimate of the viator's projected life span, as well as the
relationship
of that person to the provider and/or broker, on a form prescribed by
the Department of Insurance.
-
Amend F.S. Ch. 626 to require licensees that viaticate an insurance policy,
broker a viatication settlement or sell a viaticated policy, perform
due diligence and certify that they have examined and compared the viator's
medical
records
and life insurance application before engaging in any transaction.
-
Amend §626.9922(2) (regarding the keeping by a licensee of all records
relating to a viatical settlement contract or purchase agreement) to
increase the penalty for a first offense to a first degree misdemeanor
and a subsequent
offense to a third degree felony.
-
Amend F.S. Ch. 626 to require viatical settlement providers to notify
insurance carriers within thirty (30) days of when a life insurance
policy has been viaticated,
or when any agreement, contract or promise to viaticate has been
made between viator and provider. F.S. Ch. 626 should also require providers
to submit
to the insurance carrier along with notification a copy of the viator's
complete file used by the provider in the viatical transaction.
-
Amend F.S. §627.455 to allow insurers to contest viaticated life
insurance policies within six months of being notified of such viatication.
This provision
would apply to all life insurance policies viaticated within five years
of issuance.
-
Amend F.S. §455.667 and F.S. §395.3025 and F.S. §381.004
to allow the seizure and use of medical records pursuant to subpoena or
search warrant while preserving the integrity of the criminal investigation.
-
Amend §626.989(6) to increase the penalty for failure to report
suspected fraud by a licensee to a first degree misdemeanor.
To the Insurance Industry:
-
Consider the greater use of medical exams and blood tests before issuing
life insurance policies.
-
Require notice of viatication to the insurance carrier within thirty days
of said viatication in all life insurance contracts.
-
Offer an accelerated death benefits option on all existing and future
policies, and submit proposed enabling legislation if necessary.
-
Make greater use of industry databases, such as the Medical Information
Bureau, to check for suspicious patterns and follow up with investigations
where indicated.
-
Provide more training and education to underwriters and security personnel
concerning the detection and investigation of viatical fraud.
To Department of Insurance:
-
Standardize forms typically used by the industry including the Mortality
Profile Report, Viatical Settlement Proposal and Viatical Settlement Purchase
Agreement.
-
Promulgate rules regarding record keeping required by F.S. §626.9922,
specifying precisely where records must be maintained for inspection.
-
Establish minimum educational requirements for viatical settlement broker
licensees and viatical settlement provider licensees.
THIS REPORT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED to the Honorable Belvin Perry Jr.,
Presiding Judge of the Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury, this ______day of ________,
____.
___________________________
ROLAND P. PICCONE
Foreperson
Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury of Florida
I, MELANIE ANN HINES, Statewide Prosecutor and Legal Advisor, Fifteenth Statewide
Grand Jury of Florida, hereby certify that I, as authorized and required by
law, have advised the Grand Jury which returned this report on this _____ day
of _______, ____.
___________________________
MELANIE ANN HINES
Statewide Prosecutor
Legal Advisor
Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury of Florida
I, OSCAR GELPI, Special Counsel and Assistant Legal Advisor, Fifteenth Statewide
Grand Jury of Florida, hereby certify that I, as authorized and required by
law, have advised the Grand Jury which returned this report on this _____ day
of ______, ____.
___________________________
OSCAR GELPI
Special Counsel
Assistant Legal Advisor
Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury of Florida
THE foregoing Report on Fraud in the Viatical Industry was returned before
me this _____ day of __________, ____, and is hereby sealed until further order
of this court, upon proper motion of the Legal Advisor.
Further, upon the Legal Advisor's oral motion for the disclosure for the
purposes of furthering justice of the Report on Fraud in the Viatical Industry,
the Legal Advisor is ordered to disclose the testimony and proceedings recounted
in the foregoing document in furtherance of the criminal investigative and
civil administrative responsibilities of the Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury.
___________________________
Belvin Perry, Jr.
Presiding Judge
Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury of Florida
APPENDIX 1
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Cleansheeting: An industry term referring to a fraudulent criminal act committed
by a proposed life insurance applicant, and by life insurance agents who knowingly
assist or conspire with the insurance applicants, by failing to disclose a
pre-existing medical condition in response to a question on a life insurance
application. Such question would have been material to the issuance of the
policy. Cleansheeting is done in an effort to obtain a life insurance policy
the insured would not have otherwise been entitled to obtain because of his
or her medical condition.
Contestability: Policies may be contestable or incontestable (also referred
to as non-contestable or non-conforming). Policies are generally contestable
for two years from the date of issue and are subject to being rescinded by
the insurer for cause, such as application fraud and suicide. Incontestable
policies have passed the two-year period of contestability and in most states,
including Florida, benefits are paid even if the insurer learns that the policy
was obtained fraudulently.
Mortality Profile Report: A report based on a review of a viator's medical
history, which gives a prognosis of a viators life expectancy. Usually done
by a health-care professional and generally at the behest of the viatical settlement
provider. Used in calculating the value of a viatical contract.
Viatical Investment Broker: A term coined by the Division to define a person
or entity other than a licensed viatical settlement provider who solicits investors
to fund the purchase of viatical settlements from a viatical settlement provider.
Viatical Settlement: The life insurance policy of a terminally ill person,
sold or offered for sale, generally at less than face value, through a
viatical settlement company. Also referred to as a "Viatical."
Viatical Settlement Broker: A person who, for profit, offers or attempts
to negotiate a settlement contract between a viator and one or more viatical
settlement providers.
Viatical Settlement Provider: A person who enters into a viatical settlement
contract with a viator. Often referred to as a settlement company or funder.
Viatical Settlement Sales Agent: A person other than a licensed viatical
settlement provider who arranges for the purchase of a viatical settlement
or an interest in a viatical settlement from a viatical settlement provider.
Viator: A person who has a life threatening or terminal illness who sells
or assigns their life insurance policy.