If you aren’t familiar with a company being used on a resume, research it. While my team has various sources to confirm that a company actually exists (or existed), my favorite is OpenCorporates. You can also check state registrars and Manta, but OpenCorporates scrapes all of the various state registrars as well as corporation listings in other countries.

Deceased Companies: Let’s address those companies that have gone out of business first. When a company is deceased, your chances of confirming employment is next to nothing. While having one or two deceased companies on your resume may not point to fraudulence, having several may.

Acquired Companies: Conducting employment verification with companies that are acquired is much easier than with deceased companies (although can still be tricky). The key is to note when the company was acquired and compare that date to the date(s) represented on the candidate’s resume.  For example, a company named Beryllium was founded in 2009 and was acquired by UCB Pharma in June of 2017. If a candidate states he/she worked with Beryllium prior to 2009, it is safe to say that fraudulence has been committed.  If the candidate states they worked for Beryllium after June 2017, make sure you poke…you must dig. If the candidate left for any other reason than the acquisition, (or if the candidate wasn’t even aware of the acquisition), you may have fraudulence on your hands.

Merged and/or Rebranded Companies: similar to acquisitions, make sure you are clear on the dates of companies that have Merged or Rebranded. For illustration purposes, let’s look at Syneos and how easy it would be for fraudulent candidates to mislead others. If our notes are correct, foundational organizations that helped to develop Syneos included (but were not limited to):

• SFBC International was founded in 1984 and rebranded to PharmaNet in December of 2004;
• Ingenix was a clinical business that consisted of inVentiv, Medfocus, and Smith Hanley and eventually became i3;
• inVentiv acquired Essential group in February of 2010;
• PharmaNet was acquired by i3 somewhere around mid to late 2011 and became known as PharmaNet/i3;
• inVentiv also purchased the clinical division of Kforce with the acquisition completing in April of 2012;
• PharmaNet/i3 rebranded to inVentiv in early 2013; inVentiv merged with INC Research in 2017
• …and became Syneos Health in January 2018.

If you want to protect yourself from fraudulence, you have to know these dates. Someone stating they worked with PharmaNet prior to 2004 or the clinical division of Kforce after 2012 are likely misrepresenting themselves.

Although this action alone doesn’t necessarily point to fraudulence, if you do progress this candidate to an interview make sure you poke at the candidate’s understanding of the position’s responsibilities and expectations.

What we have found: It has been our experience that a candidate who asks for a below-market rate or salary is either desperate, fraudulent, or underprepared. We largely find these individuals come from non-industry and are therefore not clear as it relates to the current market rate.

The reality: Our firm lives in a world of Senior CRAs. Clinical research professionals at this level know what the market will support in terms of rate and salary range. Always dig further if the candidate asks for a below-market rate or salary.

But the ones we represent are those contract CRAs who are open to discussing their clients and projects with us. We feel that honest professionals will be transparent regarding the projects they have worked on. When a CRA candidate refuses to list clients or discuss the type of studies, the therapeutics involved, the start/end dates of the projects, or the primary responsibilities…it is a huge flag.

What we have found: When a candidate is purposely vague, they are typically purposely hiding something. The details we expect (clients, studies, therapeutics, start/end dates, etc) …isn’t this information the point of a resume?  Shouldn’t an applicant expect to share this information?

The reality: When a Contract CRA refuses to list and/or discuss their clients, we usually steer clear. This refusal to provide information may mean:

• The candidate may NOT actually have clients. Anyone can have an active LLC or Corporation but that doesn’t mean they have active clients.
• The projects could have ended badly…either because the contract CRA left before his/her committed contractual term or because the client ended the contract due to cause.

Either way, missing information on a resume forces me to use my imagination (which is never a good thing for the candidate).  While this alone doesn’t necessarily point to fraudulence, it is one of many grey areas you should poke at and consider when looking at the candidate’s qualifications as a whole.

If you are unable to find any digital footprint, be sure to dig deeper.  We often find digital footprints of fraudulent candidates that show they are truck drivers, work at Verizon or do other jobs outside of the industry.

As a side note, even when a candidate has a supporting LinkedIn profile, make sure you compare that LinkedIn profile to their resume. Also, conduct a deeper digital dive to see if you can find other supporting information.

For example, MD Anderson employees are often still in the MDA employee directory. If the individual was a researcher, it is likely they are cited somewhere. If they were a coordinator, they may be listed on clinicaltrials.gov.  A true senior-level clinical researcher typically has a broad and deep digital footprint, so be sure to look for one.

If you can’t find one, perhaps you should put that candidate’s application into the ‘not now’ category.

And we compare them every time we consider working with them. Often, we see where employment changes…history is good. If you are able to maintain the history of your applicants, I highly recommend you do so.