Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by skrebbel 2503 days ago
Just today, Dutch newspapers reported that courts in the Netherlands are running trial processes against suspected insurance fraudsters without any involvement from the police or the DA's office [0].

The idea is that the police force is too understaffed to do research against smalltime insurance fraud, but the insurance companies are more than happy to build the case independently. And the judge is still impartial, so everything is fine, right?

This worries me because the insurance isn't exactly impartial, right? I assume that once they suspect fraud, they really really want you to have indeed committed fraud, because there's hardly any downside for them if they wrongly accused you. They'll build up a very one-sided case.

Apparently in the US, the same problem is solved with an undereducated instead of an understaffed police force, plus semilegal bribes. To be honest I don't really see the fundamental difference between that and the new Dutch idea.

I wonder what HN thinks should be the solution. Staff more cops? What if recruiting good ones is prohibitively hard? What if the good ones would really prefer to be put on other cases than "we think Joe Smith stole $2000 from an enormous cash-loaded faceless financial corporation"? It's a hard problem.

[0] https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/proefproces-verzekeringsfraudeu...

2 comments

When lightning struck my house, insurance company just flat out refused to help, one employee of their just flat out told us on the phone that unless we could prove lightning hit our property specifically, they wouldn't even bother sending someone over to check our claims, because or the claim was false, or the lightning hit the power lines, and in this case we should bother the power company...

(by the way, we know the lightning hit our property, the damage got bigger and bigger in specific direction, and following it the place with highest amount of damage was the tall metallic post where the motor for the gate was attached...)

Wow. I had the same thing happen in back in '08, but our insurance company pulled record of lightning strikes in the area to determine if lightning could actually have been the cause. Luckily, they determined that it was the likely cause - all in all, I had almost $20,000 in damages.
Curious what they would have accepted as proof in that case?
Video surveillance showing the bolt hitting, perhaps?
A notarized affidavit from Thor?
Who was your insurer?
Santander
All prosecutorial cases in adversarial systems are "one-sided", surely?
What do you mean by "adversarial systems"?
Adversarial systems are where two advocates represent each side and attempt to convince an impartial third party (a jury, a judge) of their case. The court is an impartial referee between the two sides. This is the legal system in most common law countries (e.g. the United Kingdom, areas of the Commonwealth, etc.). In this system, the court isn't involved in investigating the facts of the case: that's up to the advocates.

This is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in civil law countries (e.g. France, Italy) where the court is actively involved in establishing the facts of the case - so they're not an impartial referee like they are in the adversial system.