Legal protection in social benefit fraud cases Adequate evidence must be obtained in the cases It has also been discussed with what certainty the authorities must be able to prove that two persons have a marriage-like relationship. The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered this issue in considerable depth in both the Sorø Case and the Greve Case. Overall, it can be said that an authority must be careful in assessing which conclusions can be supported by the information it has obtained. Thus the authority must carefully consider whether the information can be interpreted in a different way to the assumption immediately made by the authority. In the Sorø Case, for instance, the local authority argued that the man had transferred several amounts to the woman. This is an entirely normal and relevant matter to investigate in a case concerning possible ‘single person fraud’. However, in the specific case the woman pointed out that the man had stayed at her camping site and had transferred money to pay for this. This information could be of key importance, but nonetheless the local authority did not look into the matter. It is also important not to read more into information than is warranted. In the Greve Case, a woman’s boyfriend had stated according to the local authority’s notes of an interview that he was looking for a new flat himself as he needed to have his own place and that the couple ‘might move in together in the very long term’. In its decision, the local authority stated that the man had said that ‘the parties would probably move in together in due course’. It should be obvious that the local authority’s interpretation was not warranted, and it is also not confidence-inspiring when local authorities ‘clarify’ citizens’ statements in this way. In a thematic article of March 2013, the National Social Appeals Board followed up some specific cases. The article concludes that the evidence overall must create a ‘well-founded assumption that the benefit recipient maintains a joint household with another person’. In other words, there must be sufficiently clear evidence and any contradictory information must have been resolved. The assessment of evidence should be seen in the light of the authority’s obligation to ensure that adequate evidence is obtained for a decision to be made on the case. In other words, cases concerning possible social benefit fraud must be investigated according to the same rules as any other cases – for instance, the authority must take into account how intrusive the consequences of the decision would be. This follows from the general inquisitorial principle of administrative law. 45