State unveils Web tools aimed to curb unemployment abuse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Workforce Development on Wednesday debuted a pair of tools aimed at cracking down on unemployment insurance fraud.

Improper unemployment insurance claims have contributed to the state’s massive Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund debt, which now tops $1.8 billion. Indiana has been borrowing heavily from the federal government during the recession to pay unemployment benefits. In 2009, DWD identified $3.9 million in unemployment fraud.

According to a news release, businesses can now more easily challenge unemployment insurance claims from employees who quit or are fired for cause or misconduct. To begin the process, Unemployment Benefit Protest Form 640P can now be downloaded at www.in.gov/dwd/2353.html. Once a formal protest is filed, DWD will contact both the employer and the former employee to gather more information for an eligibility ruling.

DWD also has unveiled a Web site for anonymous tips about unemployment insurance fraud. The site www.in.gov/dwd/fraud allows individuals or businesses to report people they suspect are improperly collecting unemployment benefits.

Some of the most common forms of unemployment insurance fraud include continuing to collect benefits after turning down a qualified job offer; collecting benefits while also working full-time; accepting cash payments for work to avoid reporting income; and falsifying or failing to report hours and wages earned while collecting unemployment.

DWD said it investigates all fraud claims. Individuals who commit unemployment insurance fraud may be required to repay their benefits plus penalties and interest, forfeit future benefits and face criminal charges.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.