'A victimless crime. This is the perception that insurers and brokers still have to conquer with consumers in regard to insurance fraud.
But the real test will come from the proposed Fraud Bill. At last week's Insurance Times Fraud - Faking It event, the experts on the panel all agreed that there is "political appetite" for the Bill from the Attorney-General's office. Simplifying the criminal justice system to allow the police to punish fraudsters does, on paper, appear to be a commendable approach. But what was clear from the panel and the delegates that night was that as a preventative approach, more punishment may not be the way forward.
Royal & SunAlliance UK counter-fraud manager John Beadle, who is an ex-copper himself, recounted how in his early days on the beat, he was asked to investigate a theft at a local supermarket.
It was Christmas time and an old man had stolen a pork chop for his Christmas dinner. Beadle said he had let him off, and his point was to highlight the issue of making that judgment call. Does the crime need the full weight of the law?
'Rogue trader' Nick Leeson said that simple checks and controls at Barings Bank could have stopped him - or at least thwarted him. He also said that whistle-blowing at Barings might have worked, but it didn't for one simple reason. The senior manager whom employees could talk to was universally hated and employees felt they could not trust him.
The ABI's Nick Starling made it clear that the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) was a step in the right direction, but the perception issue was the hardest part of fighting fraud. Changing mind sets has to come from the industry.
Sharing data is desperately needed. With tens of committees in the industry and on the periphery discussing ways forward, the intention of the IFB is to create one voice. This must happen and cross-company data sharing can spot the habitual fraudster in their tracks.
One thing is clear - if the economy starts to take a dip then, surprise, surprise, things begin to burn.
The amount of noise coming from the government (the latest figures say £72bn is lost to the UK economy through fraud) means that it is worried.
But is it Lord Goldsmith or the Chancellor who is really worried? IT