Identifying Fraudulent Candidates: Red Flags for Life Science Recruiters

Fraudulent candidates are individuals who intentionally deceive employers by misrepresenting their qualifications, skills, or experience during the job application process. In the life science industry, these candidates pose a significant threat to employers.

The industry relies heavily on trust, accuracy, and ethical conduct to ensure the safety and efficacy of health products and treatments. Hiring a fraudulent candidate can lead to severe consequences such as compromised research, regulatory violations, financial losses, damaged reputation, and even jeopardised patient safety.

Fraudulent candidates usually have one of three broad objectives:

To gain access to an organisation for data (e.g., customer lists and contact details), industrial espionage or cybercrime, usually for financial gain.
To get the job, only to subcontract it out to another person or organisation for a fee. This is especially common in remote IT work, where work might be passed to less skilled individuals or teams.
To get someone with more experience through the interview and to receive a job offer, only to be replaced with the ‘real’ person when the contract begins.

More often than not, ‘interview farms’ are behind fraudulent candidates, subcontracting out jobs in bulk and working on behalf of clients to offer what is referred to as ‘Phishing as a Service’. Malicious actors are also often behind fraudulent candidates and may represent a cybercrime group, country, competitor, or political organisation. On a less organised level, fraudulent candidates may simply be the result of desperate individuals who will try anything to get a job.

In this article, we delve deeper into the intentions of fraudulent candidates, outlining red flags to look out for to protect your organisation against these individuals or groups.

Mismatched Skills and Qualifications

When there’s a mismatch between the skills and qualifications required for a job and those claimed by a candidate, it suggests they may not have the necessary expertise or background needed to effectively perform the job duties. This may be indicative of potentially fraudulent or deceptive behaviour, which you can identify by:

Carefully reviewing the candidate’s CV to assess whether their educational background aligns with the job requirements
Looking for relevant degrees, certifications, or specialised training that demonstrates their qualifications
Examining their work experience and job responsibilities to see if they have relevant experience in similar roles or projects
Paying attention to specific skills, techniques, or methodologies mentioned
Asking probing questions during the interview about their technical skills and industry knowledge to assess their proficiency and ensure alignment with the job requirements
Conducting skill assessments or requesting work samples to further validate their skillset

By thoroughly evaluating the candidate’s qualifications and probing deeper during the interview process, you’ll be able to identify any discrepancies between their stated skills and those genuinely required for the role.

Exaggerated Claims of Achievements

Candidates who exaggerate their achievements may compensate for a lack of skills, qualifications, or experience. Identifying when a candidate is exaggerating their claims of achievements requires scrutiny of their application materials and a thorough evaluation during the interview process. To detect such exaggerations, pay close attention to the specificity and verifiability of their claimed accomplishments. Look for concrete details, measurable outcomes, or any supporting evidence they provide to substantiate their claims.

Dig deeper during the interview by asking specific follow-up questions about their roles, responsibilities, and achievements, asking for more information on things such as the processes they followed and the lessons they learnt. By diligently uncovering any exaggerations, you’ll be able to make more informed decisions and ensure you’re focusing your resources on candidates with genuine qualifications and accomplishments.

Inconsistent Information on Resumes or Job Applications

Inconsistencies can undermine the trustworthiness of the candidate and raise doubts about their attention to detail, integrity, and overall suitability for the role. Some examples of inconsistent information to look out for include:

Disparities in employment dates
Conflicting job titles or responsibilities across different applications
Inconsistencies in educational qualifications or degrees earned
Varying job descriptions or accomplishments
Discrepancies in contact information or references provided

Looking out for these red flags will help to ensure that you’re making informed hiring decisions based on accurate and reliable information.

Gaps in Employment History

Significant gaps in employment history can be a red flag as they may indicate a lack of experience and skills or suggest that the candidate has had difficulty securing or retaining employment. You must approach these gaps with sensitivity and open-mindedness, recognising that many candidates may have experienced genuine reasons for unemployment. Before making any assumptions or judgements, ask the candidate to clarify the reasons behind the gaps and provide context. If the candidate is genuine, you may gain a deeper understanding of their unique situation and identify any transferable skills or experiences they may have gained during the break.

Genuine reasons for employment gaps could include caring for a family member, personal health issues, further training or education, voluntary work, or even implications from the COVID-19 pandemic, so approach gaps with empathy as well as curiosity.

Poor References or Recommendations

Poor references could indicate performance issues, lack of professionalism, a strained working relationship with previous employers or colleagues, or even a false job role. Pay attention to the tone and content of the reference letter or conversation. Vague or generic statements, absence of specific examples of achievements, and lukewarm endorsements may suggest a lack of enthusiasm or genuine support for the candidate.

Additionally, you could also cross-reference the provided references with social media platforms or professional networking sites to validate the authenticity and legitimacy of the references. Checking the contact information and reaching out to the reference directly can also help verify their identity and ensure they’re a credible source. Mobile numbers, personal email addresses, and lack of a clear relationship between the referee and the candidate can all be red flags for false or misleading references.

Refusal to Take Skills Assessments or Performance Tests

Skills assessments or performance tests are often crucial parts of the recruitment process, especially for roles with specialised skills, as they provide you with tangible and objective evidence of the candidate’s ability to perform the job. By refusing to take part, candidates may be signalling that they are not willing to put in the effort to prove their suitability or that they might not be as qualified as they claim.

Before making any decisions about a candidate’s refusal to take part, ensure that their reasoning isn’t to do with anything personal such as needing additional support or not having the appropriate equipment to complete the test.

Unwillingness or Difficulties Following Interview Instructions

Some fraudulent candidates may display an unwillingness or inability to appear on camera and take part in video interviews or meetings. When they do appear on camera, there may be inconsistencies with things such as time, location, device being used, or even appearance. And whilst we all experience technical difficulties every once in a while, these candidates may consistently use this excuse to avoid being seen.

For in-person interviews, fraudulent candidates may express concern about in-person meetings, presenting reasons as to why they can’t attend often at the last minute.

Unprofessional Behaviour

Unprofessional behaviour can suggest a lack of respect, poor communication skills, difficulties following workplace norms, and even fraudulent intent. Examples of unprofessional behaviour to look out for when assessing candidates include:

Failing to show up to interviews or arrive on time
Failing to dress appropriately or grooming improperly
Speaking rudely to interviewers
Being uncooperative or difficult to work with
Lying about qualifications or experience
Exhibiting other signs of disrespect or dishonesty

Be vigilant about observing and documenting unprofessional behaviour, and carefully weigh these factors in making hiring decisions.

Evasive Behaviour or Vague Answers

Evasive behaviour or vague answers may suggest a lack of honesty, transparency, or insufficient knowledge, making it harder for you to assess their qualifications accurately and make informed hiring decisions. Examples of evasive behaviour could include:

Avoiding direct responses to specific questions
Providing general or ambiguous answers
Deflecting or changing the topic
Using excessive jargon or technical terms to mask a lack of understanding
Providing incomplete or inconsistent information

Be vigilant in identifying this behaviour, seeking clarification when necessary, and considering the impact of evasive behaviour on a candidate’s suitability for the role.

Suspicious Behaviour Body Language

Regardless of whether a job interview is in-person or online, behaviour and body language are important indicators as to whether a candidate is genuine. Some red flags may include:

Taking too long to answer interview questions, with odd pauses or stalling
Signs of eye scanning or consistently looking off-camera during a video interview
Delays between video and audio syncing (could indicate miming over AI-generated responses)
Phone frequently muted or has excessive lag
Lots of people or noise in the background (potentially an ‘interview farm’)
Very poor lighting so they appear as a silhouettes, hiding their features

Lack of Enthusiasm or Interest

A lack of enthusiasm or interest could be a red flag as it may indicate they are not genuinely invested in or excited about your opportunity. Even if the candidate isn’t a fraud, a candidate who lacks enthusiasm or interest may not be as committed to the role and may not perform well if hired, leading to a waste of resources and a less productive work environment.

To identify this, be observant of the candidate’s body language and tone of voice during interviews. Candidates who display crossed arms, slumped posture, or speak with a disinterested tone for example may be signalling disengagement or disinterest in the opportunity. They may also display a lack of preparation, failing to ask relevant questions or provide thoughtful responses. Be wary of candidates who exhibit these signs of disinterest, probe for underlying issues, and evaluate the candidate’s suitability for the role based on their behaviour as well as what you see on paper.

Questionable Online Presence

In today’s digital age, a candidate’s online presence can provide valuable insights into their character and suitability for a role. A fraudulent candidate may have a history of participating in scams or fraudulent activities, which can be revealed through their online interactions, posts, or relationships. A questionable online presence may encompass the following:

False claims or exaggerations about qualifications, job experience, or achievements
Inappropriate or offensive content
Associating with controversial individuals or groups
Discrepancies between what the applicant presents online and the information provided during the application process
Multiple online profiles for the same identity, possibly with different pictures
Complete lack of online presence, especially on professional platforms such as LinkedIn
Social media accounts change or disappear after an interview

Things to Watch Out For in the Near Future

Technology is evolving and advancing every day, making these fraudulent candidate attacks more complex and harder to detect. Some technologies to look out for in the near future include:

Face masking AI: Placing someone else’s face on a video, and in real-time
Eye tracking fix: Fixing eye movements that would indicate a candidate is reading off-screen (some bloggers are already doing this during post-production)
Complete AI personas: Dynamically created deep fakes
Voice cloning: Replacing a jobseekers voice with a different one
Interview AI: Tools such as Final Round AI help jobseekers answer questions during an interview or practice interview

Protect Your Organisation…

In the life science industry, where integrity and authenticity are paramount, recruiters and hiring managers must remain vigilant in identifying and preventing fraudulent candidates. By being aware of these 10 red flags, you’ll be able to effectively unmask the frauds and maintain the credibility of your organisation and the success of your hiring strategy.

Stay up to date with the latest news and trends in life science recruitment by registering for our free webinars, and visit our recruiter services portfolio for more information on how we can help with your hiring.

Get Help With Your Hiring

Need help connecting with top life sciences talent? Contact us today.

Lucy Walters

Senior Marketing Executive at PharmiWeb.

Identifying Fraudulent Candidates: Red Flags for Life Science Recruiters