Civil Servant's Five-Job Fraud Conviction Highlights Importance of Employment Screening

A former civil servant has been convicted of fraud after secretly holding multiple full-time government jobs simultaneously, raising questions about employment verification, recruitment controls and ongoing workforce assurance.

Kashim Chowdhury, 56, was found guilty of nine counts of fraud at Southwark Crown Court on 9 November 2026.

Between 2020 and 2023, Chowdhury obtained employment with eight public-sector organisations, repeatedly concealing existing employment arrangements when applying for additional positions.

At one point, he was receiving salaries from five full-time government jobs, with contractual commitments totalling 183 hours per week.

The case highlights how inaccurate employment declarations can remain undetected across different organisations and why effective Pre-Employment Screening should form part of a wider approach to managing workforce risk.

Five Government Jobs and Almost £350,000 in Earnings

According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Chowdhury began working for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in February 2020 before obtaining another full-time position with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The two positions overlapped for more than a year.

He subsequently secured further roles with public-sector organisations including the Department of Health and Social Care, UK Health Security Agency, Department for Business and Trade, Food Standards Agency and Home Office.

Between 20 March and 31 May 2023, he simultaneously held five full-time positions.

The court heard that Chowdhury earned almost £350,000 across eight employers during the period examined, including more than £280,000 in gross pay during months when his employment overlapped.

Prosecutors established that he repeatedly misrepresented his existing employment status when applying for positions.

Chowdhury was convicted following a two-week trial, and the CPS has confirmed that it intends to pursue recovery of the proceeds of his offending.

The case demonstrates how misleading employment information can create substantial financial and operational consequences for employers.

How Was the Employment Fraud Discovered?

Despite the number of organisations involved, the fraudulent employment arrangements continued for several years.

Chowdhury worked remotely and told employers that he needed to work from home to care for his elderly mother.

The court also heard that he took sick leave from some positions while continuing to work in others.

However, the fraud was ultimately uncovered through a data-matching exercise conducted by the National Fraud Initiative, which identified simultaneous employment with two government departments.

Separately, a manager at the UK Health Security Agency had noticed that Chowdhury joined a sickness-related meeting using a Defra email address.

These developments illustrate how discrepancies can emerge through different sources, including employment records, internal observations and cross-organisational data analysis.

The case also demonstrates the importance of reviewing inconsistencies rather than relying solely on information supplied by an employee.

The Importance of Employment History Verification

Employment History Verification is a fundamental component of many Pre-Employment Screening programmes.

Its purpose is to establish whether information supplied by a candidate accurately reflects their previous employment.

Depending on the agreed screening scope, checks may confirm employers, dates of employment, positions held and relevant discrepancies.

Where appropriate, verification can include contacting previous employers or reviewing suitable supporting documentation.

However, verifying that an individual previously held a particular position does not necessarily establish whether they continue to hold that position.

This distinction becomes important when candidates move between organisations, undertake contract work or maintain additional employment.

Employers should consider whether their recruitment procedures adequately address current employment declarations and potential conflicts with the responsibilities of a proposed role.

Professional Pre-Employment Screening can help organisations independently verify relevant candidate information and identify discrepancies requiring clarification before an appointment is finalised.

The objective is not to assume that candidates are dishonest, but to support consistent and evidence-based recruitment decisions.

What Role Does BPSS Screening Play?

The conviction is particularly relevant to organisations employing individuals in government and other security-sensitive environments.

The Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) establishes the UK government's baseline pre-employment screening requirements for relevant personnel, including civil servants, contractors and suppliers.

BPSS broadly covers four areas:

• Identity verification.
• Nationality and immigration status, including Right to Work.
• Employment history verification.
• Checks concerning unspent criminal convictions.

Employment history is especially relevant where an individual has worked across several organisations or where gaps and inconsistencies require explanation.

Appropriate verification may help identify incorrect dates, undisclosed positions or information that does not align with a candidate's declared employment history.

However, BPSS is not designed to provide continuous monitoring of an individual's employment arrangements after screening has been completed.

Nor does it guarantee the identification of every undeclared concurrent position.

For employers requiring further information about the standard, our guide to What Are Pre-Employment Checks? explains how BPSS fits within wider recruitment screening requirements.

The Chowdhury case demonstrates why screening should operate alongside effective employment policies, management oversight and appropriate fraud-detection controls.

Can Pre-Employment Screening Identify Multiple Jobs?

One of the important questions raised by the conviction is whether pre-employment checks could have identified the overlapping arrangements earlier.

The answer depends on the checks undertaken, the information available and the circumstances of the employment.

Where a candidate declares previous employment, independent verification may confirm relevant employment dates and identify discrepancies.

However, an employer may not automatically discover additional employment that has not been declared.

There is no universal public database through which private employers can establish every current employment arrangement held by an individual.

Even where employment records or tax information can be obtained through appropriate lawful processes, those records may not provide complete or sufficiently current information about every appointment.

Employers should therefore avoid assuming that a completed background check provides absolute assurance about a candidate's ongoing employment commitments.

Instead, recruitment procedures may need to combine independent verification with clear declarations, appropriate contractual obligations and internal reporting mechanisms.

Any checks must be lawful, proportionate and relevant to the responsibilities of the position.

Why Ongoing Workforce Assurance Matters

Pre-Employment Screening provides an important assessment at the point of recruitment, but workforce risks can change after an individual joins an organisation.

Employees may undertake additional work, change their circumstances or develop interests that create potential conflicts with their existing responsibilities.

Holding more than one job is not inherently fraudulent or prohibited. Problems arise where individuals make dishonest declarations, breach relevant obligations or receive payment on the basis of false representations.

Employers should establish clear expectations about outside employment, conflicts of interest and disclosure requirements where these are relevant to the role.

For sensitive positions, organisations may also consider proportionate periodic screening or re-verification where there is an appropriate legal and operational basis.

Possible safeguards include:

• Clear declarations of existing employment during recruitment.
• Independent verification of relevant employment information.
• Defined procedures for reporting additional employment or conflicts of interest.
• Appropriate management oversight of performance and attendance.
• Consistent escalation of material discrepancies.
• Periodic reviews for sensitive positions where justified.
• Lawful data-matching and fraud-prevention processes where available.

These measures should be implemented consistently and with appropriate regard for employee privacy and data protection requirements.

Lessons for Public and Private Sector Employers

Although the case involved government departments and public bodies, the underlying issues are relevant to private employers.

Organisations increasingly rely on remote recruitment, flexible working arrangements and employees operating across multiple locations.

These practices can offer substantial benefits, but they also require employers to maintain effective verification and accountability procedures.

Where recruitment is managed by different departments or external providers, discrepancies may become harder to identify without consistent screening standards and clear ownership of the process.

For employers, the key lesson is not that remote working creates dishonesty.

It is that recruitment decisions should be based on reliable information and supported by appropriate controls throughout the employment relationship.

Independent employment verification can help establish the facts at appointment, while clear policies and management processes provide additional safeguards once employment begins.

How Conflict International Can Assist

Conflict International provides UK and international Pre-Employment Screening services for businesses, public-sector organisations, government contractors and other employers.

Our screening programmes can incorporate Employment History Verification, Identity Verification, Right to Work checks, BPSS Screening, qualification verification and other role-appropriate checks.

We also provide access to our secure vetting portal, enabling clients to manage screening applications, monitor progress and access completed reports through a centralised platform.

Our approach focuses on independent verification, clear reporting and screening requirements proportionate to the responsibilities of each position.

While no screening programme can eliminate every risk, structured checks can help employers identify material discrepancies before important recruitment decisions are made.

For organisations reviewing their recruitment procedures or requiring assistance with employment verification, contact Conflict International to discuss an appropriate Pre-Employment Screening programme.