A client company recently approached Stern India to screen shortlisted potential candidates before they were hired. We deployed our experts to investigate/ validate material about the nominated candidates. A summary of one inconsistent case is mentioned herewith for your reference:
Pre-hiring employment verification and other checks about a candidate (Subject) revealed informational discrepancies. This led Stern India to escalate the matter to its Specialist Team to probe further.
While our Subject measured out well on the personal data sheet, his professional details raised eyebrows. He had laid claims about working for a certain organisation, in his experience letter, for close to 2 years in the recent past. This could not be validated as the registered phone number belonged to an uninvolved residential address.
The said company does not feature on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ (MCA) website. Hence, Stern India deployed its field agent to personally verify the address mentioned on the official letterhead of that company. The address was incomplete; the mentioned location was divided into different phases; the target thereby was not established. We have pictorial proofs of the same.
Simultaneously, our other investigating agents searched for the company’s official logo; located a similar sounding company using the same logo. However, attempts to reach them failed as its official contact number was switched off.
Another agent was positioned to authenticate that company address. At the said location, a Human Resource Executive stamped and verified our Subject’s credentials, and also confessed that the company in question had changed its name. This Executive further directed our agents to the Director of that company for further information.
When we established contact with this professional, he refuted claims by the Executive, stating that he/she had no authority to validate anybody’s credentials. Although, the Director did agree that the Subject worked for him, but not for the period that was mentioned on his bio-data. Additional attempts to reach the Director failed, as he too, could not be contacted on his cell phone again.
Further deepening the mystery, the company mentioned by the Subject, claimed itself to be a division of a certain registered organisation. However, not only had the organisation closed down for a long time, but also the authorised person had no idea of its division (or the renamed company, for that matter) that the candidate had mentioned. He readily acknowledged that he had been receiving calls pertaining to ‘that’ company, about which he had no knowledge of.
Further, we also consulted them over risk analysis of the situation and other related information, giving them the leverage to make informed decisions, safeguarding their principles against someone’s possible vested interests, and/ or a possible business deal.