Businesses and government entities that supply their employees with expense cards, which may also be referred to “fuel cards” are likely to have at least some fraudulent charges made against these cards. For example, an expense card may be used to purchase fuel for a driver's personal vehicle, or the vehicle of a friend of the driver. There have even been instances where a person has paid the driver some percentage of the value of fuel fraudulently obtained, so that both driver and fuel recipient benefit according to a nefarious arrangement.
Investigating transactions using human investigators can prove as expensive as the fuel theft. One method that could be used, for an operator that tracks its fleet vehicles and stores the data in a data repository accessible to investigators, would be to compare the purchase time and location with the times and locations for vehicle stops stored in the repository, to find cases where there is no match. To review every transaction, for a large operation such as a state government or a trucking company owning one thousand trucks, would require so many investigators that their pay would soon devour the savings made by stopping the fraud.
Efforts are complicated by fuel stations that associate a time to the transaction record that reflects the time when the transaction record was uploaded to a remote station, which may be some hours after the actual purchase. This practice is particularly common in remote areas that are poorly served by telecommunications infrastructure. Another complication is that the location provided on the transaction is typically provided as a street address, as opposed to the latitude and longitude coordinates provided in the fleet vehicle location data. Adding further to the challenge is the fact that the address listed may be for a business office that is not co-located with the fueling station. Clearly, some better way of focusing the efforts of investigators is needed.
The following embodiments and aspects thereof are described and illustrated in conjunction with systems, tools and methods which are meant to be exemplary and illustrative, not limiting in scope. In various embodiments, one or more of the above-described problems have been reduced or eliminated, while other embodiments are directed to other improvements.
In preferred embodiment, an analysis tool is provided to a user to help that user quickly comb through the vast number of purchases, to focus only on those where there is some indication that fraud could have been involved. These suspect purchases are those where there is a lack of correspondence between the location and time of any vehicle stop, for the vehicle on record as having visited the purchase venue (typically a fuel station), and the purchase record. Because the purchase record can be misleading regarding time and location, a lack of match is not a certain indication of fraud, but it does merit further investigation. The tool permits a user to set a time and distance window about each fuel purchase time and location, or to choose a best match algorithm. After a table showing the purchases and closest stops is returned, the user may, for any one of them, choose to view a map view showing vehicle stops and purchase location.
In addition to the exemplary aspects and embodiments described above, further aspects and embodiments will become apparent by reference to the drawings and by study of the following detailed descriptions.
Exemplary embodiments are illustrated in referenced drawings. It is intended that the embodiments and figures disclosed herein are to be considered illustrative rather than restrictive.
In the context of this application, the term “expense card’ will encompass fuel cards, debit cards, credit cards and include any card that can be used to make a purchase. The terms “purchase time” and “purchase location” reference the time and location listed on the purchase record, which might also be termed a “purchase receipt.”
In a preferred embodiment, the present invention may take the form of a method and system for matching a vehicle stop location with a purchase record. Although the purchase record is typically a fuel purchase record, the purchase record contains a product field and could include other types of products that could be purchased by a fuel card, or some other type of expense card. In practice, a set of purchase records may be entered essentially simultaneously, with each treated the same way, sequentially.
Referring to
Referring to
Although transaction records include a fueling station name that does uniquely identify a particular station, the location is identified by a street address. For many of the stations, however, a set of geo coordinates are already stored in the system 10, and associated with the station name. If there are no stored geo coordinates (decision box 16), however, third party map service, such as Bing® Maps or Google® Maps is accessed over the Internet, with the station address being sent to the map service and geo coordinates being extracted (block 18). Now that the information from the transaction record has been rendered into the same format as the vehicle location information, the system 10 either asks for user input or checks to see if user input has been received, indicating whether the vehicle stop locations should be compared against user indicated location and time window, as shown in
Referring to
Referring, now, to
In a preferred embodiment, the data displayed to the user at block 13 includes vehicle identification and driver identification, the difference in time and location between the selected vehicle stop and the purchase time and location, and the location of both the vehicle stop and the purchase. This permits a quick, human check on the correctness of the match. In some cases, fuel level before and after the vehicle stop is available and is included in the data made available to the user. For a fuel purchase, this permits a quick check on the match between vehicle stop and fuel purchase, because when there is no change in fuel level it is clear that the vehicle stop did not, in fact, match to the fuel purchase. In one preferred embodiment, only vehicle stops showing an increase in fuel level roughly matching the purchase receipt are considered in the analysis. The user can run the case (purchase record) again, with different parameters, when it can be shown that the vehicle stop noted was not, in fact, related to the purchase. In one preferred embodiment, the user can exclude a vehicle stop from consideration when looking anew for the correct vehicle stop to match to a purchase record. In another preferred embodiment, after a candidate vehicle stop is chosen, the system 10 checks to see if there is fuel level data and if there is not a change in fuel level, seeks another vehicle stop.
Referring now to
As noted above,
In a further embodiment, an “investigate further” or “don't investigate further” advisory is displayed to a human user for every purchase record. In an additional embodiment, a “no fraud” certainty indicator is provided to the human user.
While a number of exemplary aspects and embodiments have been discussed above, those possessed of skill in the art will recognize certain modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations thereof. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims and claims hereafter introduced are interpreted to include all such modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations as are within their true spirit and scope.
This application claims benefit to provisional application Ser. No. 62/535,512 filed on Jul. 21, 2017, and provisional application Ser. No. 62/537,417 filed on Jul. 26, 2017, which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7353396 | Micali et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
8171524 | Micali et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8577810 | Dalit et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
9230375 | Micali et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9311616 | Westerlage | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9441977 | Harter | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9466156 | Getchius | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9471921 | Dalit et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
20080035725 | Jambunathan et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20100070349 | Daems | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100287038 | Copejans | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20120023022 | Carroll et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20130332251 | Ioannidis et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20150154592 | Ioannidis et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150170151 | Lamb | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20160180614 | Micali et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20170236101 | Irudayam | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243484 | Li | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20180374279 | Siegl | Dec 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3136328 | Mar 2017 | EP |
2235690 | Jul 2018 | EP |
WO2003088166 | Oct 2003 | WO |
WO2009090515 | Jul 2009 | WO |
WO2016083778 | Jun 2016 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62537417 | Jul 2017 | US | |
62535512 | Jul 2017 | US |