Wondering about this:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
Is there a timeline on the “prompt, good faith effort” or is it solely based on doing it “before being confronted by the facts”
Judgement call. If corrected only because it was going to be discovered…a good investigator will know this…squeeze a little, maybe even ask in a roundabout way prompting a person to address an issue. I see it sometimes with people insisting they were never written up for anything.When the BI person reviews the company file and sees several signed write-ups… credibility is at stake. If you called a day or three after submitting I think you are fine if it is a small detail. Forgetting a felony, or fine, arrest…I think the rope gets far shorter. Honest mistakes happen. If it is explainable, it is understandable. But there have been a few folks recommending people “technically quibble” about a 10 year limitation on an item. If I had an issue on the line I would simply state “not within 10 years, however, I do want to speak about this 10 year 2 month old item.” Acknowledging it can help build rapport with the BI person and I think it speaks to integrity.
I think this means you did meaningful and appropriate actions with intent to follow through, like engaging the lender on an unknown debt and done as soon as reasonably possible after the investigator believes you would of been aware of it.
It likely depends on the issue and the factors mentioned above. There a big difference between “omission”, “concealment” and “falsification” . . . You have listed them in, what I see as, the order of seriousness.
People “omit” things all of the time. They forget, misinterpret questions or mistype information. This is pretty easily mitigated most of the time. Concealment and falsification are much more difficult to address.
The line occurs when the Investigator confronts you with the information. The investigator must give you a chance, usually by asking the SCA question again (better investigators will ask you several times using different approaches) before the confrontation.
Be mindful, having to be asked several times is included in the ROI - whether or not you finally provide the information.
Concur Ed and BI. And credibly being able to explain an omission is absolutely key to this. And yes the seriousness of the item is also a huge player. For example if I have an 850 credit score, and did not report a $12 collection I I forgot from 9 years earlier when I only had an 840 credit score…easy to explain. Very believable this is not common or routine and my FICO speaks to the history. However, if I possess non legal drugs knowingly, and I don’t report this…the bar is much higher. The reason for omitting/concealing/falsifying such an item comes into play. I seriously have not a care in the world for a 9 year old accidental $12 collection. But you can bet not reporting drug possession is just different. The impact and known implications come into play. So if I have a plausible explanation…maybe. But my explanation must be plausible, or it will be correctly noted I dithered, quibbled, downplayed etc. And you better believe that calls into questions whether or not I can be trusted with classified material.