Why you might need to be careful of that job offer
If you're being asked to pay to work, that's a big red flag.
Photo:
Pixabay
In a tight job market, being approached by a recruiter for a job opening may seem like a stroke of good fortune, but for some job hunters, it's turned out to be a major letdown - or worse.
Recruitment scams are becoming increasingly prevalent.
In a recruitment scam, a fake job ad is posted or an offer of employment made to get personal information out of would-be applicants.
The scammers can then use the data for online fraud and identity theft. Sometimes, people are also asked for money.
Shay Peters, chief executive of recruitment firm Robert Walters in Australia and New Zealand, said he had seen a spike in the number of scammers in the last 2-3 months. Some pretend to work for his company.
"It's a concern that people are leveraging off our brand in the market, trying to gain very, very private information on people's backgrounds," he said. "We're an organisation that's been around for over 40 years.
"Our name is fairly well known. Only recently, I've had personal contacts reach out to me, saying they've been contacted by Robert Walters for some quite senior level roles in New Zealand.
"I've had to let them know it's not actually us, because it looks legit."
He said the risks to jobseekers were "quite profound".
"The information that we are privy to is significant about a person's background and the risk of identity fraud is very, very high, when you're dealing with scammers pretending to be from the recruitment industry."
Netsafe chief online safety officer Sean Lyons said employment-related scams made up a significant part of the financial losses reported last year, and seemed to be on the rise in New Zealand and overseas.
"These scams can be sophisticated and often leverage well-known brands in New Zealand to create a false sense of legitimacy, making them more appealing to potential victims.
"Scammers use a variety of different methods, but a common employment scam we see is a job offer for a role that can be done relatively easily. Once people sign up, they're told they are earning money, but when they try to withdraw it, that's when the scam starts to be revealed.
"At this point, scammers will often offer large incentives to leave the money or simply stall to the point where people give up in exasperation. While identifying a scam can be tricky, it's important to have a level of scepticism when it comes to online job offers."
He said people should think carefully, before engaging with any unsolicited offers.
"Very few - if any - genuine opportunities will come out of the blue, with no previous contact or connection. If you are being asked to pay in order to work, then this should be looked at with caution and scepticism.
"Prospective employers don't generally ask people to pay money to be employed, so if that is the ask, think very carefully before taking any further steps, even if the amount seems relatively small to begin with and, perhaps because of that, feel like they are worth a risk, they are not.
"If the job is at a known company, contact them directly to verify the ad's legitimacy, before moving ahead with anything."
Peters said all recruiters would have a Linked In profile. People could check that and make sure it lined up with what they were being told.
"Scammers will post fake profiles too, so you might need to dig a bit deeper, but some of the scamming we are seeing at the moment is quite rudimentary. People are gaining access to people's accounts through Whatsapp, Facebook, text messaging and offering quite senior-level roles, without many layers or barriers to achieving success in gaining that role.
"The sniff test is also very important from that perspective."
Lyons said it would be almost unheard of to be offered a job without a job interview.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Concern Mark Lundy parole board condition impinges on freedom of speech
Mark Lundy Photo: RNZ Mark Lundy hasn't said or written a word publicly since he was released from prison early last month. That's because the man twice convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in Palmerston North in August 2000 cannot speak to the media, post on social media or blog about his case. Given he proclaims his innocence, there is concern this Parole Board condition impinges on his right to freedom of speech. He's on a life sentence, so potentially could be subjected to conditions for decades. When the Parole Board raised the possibility of banning Lundy from giving media interviews , his response was clear: "I'd welcome it with open arms," he told board members. Mark Lundy was released from prison last month. Photo: RNZ / Daniel Jones He said when he was on bail ahead of his 2015 retrial, reporters swarmed his street and accosted him. Private investigator Tim McKinnel said the parole condition not to speak publicly took away a person's most important tool - their own voice. "I think these conditions that gag or muzzle prisoners who come out of prison, who are maintaining their innocence, are really problematic," he said. "I think there is a real risk that comes from preventing people from speaking out on their own behalf." Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. That it was the board raising the matter with Lundy, rather than something he brought up, was concerning. "I think that's quite different than having that question put to them by the parole board: 'We are contemplating a condition where you cannot speak publicly about your case, what do you think about that?' "In the context of a parole hearing, you're going to be a pretty brave prisoner to push back on the Parole Board against those types of questions or scenarios." Gail Maney was acquitted for her role in Deane Fuller-Sandys' death. Photo: Jason Dorday / Stuff In some wrongful conviction cases, such as Gail Maney , her public advocacy played a huge role in proving she was not involved in killing Deane Fuller-Sandys in the late 1980s, McKinnel said. "Look at the history of wrongful conviction cases in New Zealand. There is scarcely a case when the media haven't played a fundamentally important role in exposing those miscarriages of justice. "If you take away the voice of the prisoner in arguing for themselves, I think you're at risk of preventing some of these cases emerging." McKinnel is known for his work in helping expose Teina Pora 's wrongful conviction for killing Susan Burdett. Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Pora was also banned from talking to media when on parole before his conviction was quashed. A progress parole hearing heard he was grateful to live without media intrusion. In a statement, the Parole Board said it had on rare occasions imposed media restrictions when granting parole. It did so in Lundy's case to protect him, after he expressed concerns about media interest in him, and to take into account victims' concerns about news reports from when he was on bail awaiting retrial. Media law expert Steven Price said the restriction on Lundy was wide ranging. "It's not just that he can't speak to the media, he can't go on social media either, and he can't go on webpages his parole officer says he can't go on. "They're pretty wide restrictions and they certainly affect his freedom of speech." The Parole Board could impose restrictions for reasons such as reducing the chance of reoffending, but it couldn't be more restrictive than necessary. Photo: Supplied Price agreed with McKinnel that people up for parole, such as Lundy, were likely to agree with any condition the board suggested. "[Lundy's] been convicted twice of murder in extremely controversial circumstances and he can't talk about that to the media. We can't ask him about that. "We can't ask him about his experiences in prison. He can't even go on social media and join a Facebook group to support social media or the All Blacks." Price said the board should have tailored restrictions on Lundy's speech to limit what would genuinely be harmful, but he acknowledged it's a difficult situation. Koi Tū research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis said he hoped the Parole Board would review Lundy's restriction at some point, given its implications for free speech. "It's the wider principle that I think as a society we need to safeguard. The rights under the Bill of Rights Act were hard won, hard fought for, and need to be protected." Media had a right to be concerned at such conditions, Ellis said. The Parole Board noted that in its decision, it said the following: "On balance, this board is satisfied that Mr Lundy will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole on strict conditions designed to address his risk as well as assist in his reintegration and address victim concerns." Although Lundy's parole conditions were imposed for life, he could apply to have his restrictions varied at any time, and he would have a monitoring hearing to check on his progress in October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Erin Patterson finishes giving evidence as mushroom murder trial enters final stages
By Joseph Dunstan and Judd Boaz, ABC Erin Patterson has completed giving testimony in her murder trial in Morwell. Photo: ABC News Accused triple-murderer Erin Patterson has rejected a prosecution claim she carried out factory resets in a bid to deceive police about her mobile phones, as she came to the end of eight days in the witness box in her Supreme Court trial. Patterson has been charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after three relatives - her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson - died from death cap mushroom poisoning following a lunch at her house on 29 July, 2023. A fourth lunch guest, Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, became gravely ill after the meal but survived. At the close of the prosecution's cross-examination, Patterson reiterated her innocence of all four charges. In rapid fire, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC put to Patterson the crux of the charges: that she "deliberately sourced death cap mushrooms" and put them in the dish she served to her lunch guests "intending to kill them". "Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked. "Disagree," Patterson responded. The trial has now concluded hearing evidence and will move to closing arguments from the prosecution and defence, before the judge issues final instructions to the jury ahead of their deliberation. Over the course of the past six weeks of the murder trial, the prosecution has alleged Patterson owned and used two phones with two separate SIM cards - Phone A and Phone B. Phone A was never recovered by police, but under cross-examination on Thursday Patterson rejected prosecutors' assertion that that was because she had hidden the phone from police. Rogers showed the court extensive phone records from a SIM card that was in Phone A up until 5 August, 2023, a week after the lunch. The records indicated the phone was in regular use up until sometime between 12:01pm and 1:45pm, when the SIM card in Phone A lost connection with the network. At that time, police were conducting a search of Patterson's Leongatha home. Rogers put to Patterson that she removed the SIM card from Phone A when she was "afforded privacy to speak with a lawyer while police were at your home". Patterson disagreed and said her calls to a lawyer occurred at 2pm, after the alleged loss of connection. Patterson also rejected a claim from prosecutors that the reason she had conducted three factory resets on Phone B was so she could deceive police and "pass [it] off" as her regular phone. When police executed a search warrant on Patterson's home on 5 August, a week after the deadly lunch, it was Phone B that she gave to police. The prosecution suggested she did so as she knew there was no data on the phone to potentially incriminate her, which Patterson denied. Rogers took Patterson to records of three factory resets made on Phone B. Patterson had previously told the court of the following reasons for factory resetting the phone on these dates in 2023: On Thursday, Rogers suggested to Patterson she had carried out those resets for another reason. "I suggest that you did three factory resets of this phone, Phone B ... to conceal the true contents of Phone B ... so you could then pass off Phone B as your usual mobile phone, without police realising," Rogers said. Patterson agreed she carried out the three resets, but disagreed that she did for the reasons Rogers suggested. Rogers went on to assert that it was "all about hiding the contents of your usual mobile phone, Phone A", which she asserted Patterson had "deliberately concealed" because she knew the data on that device would "incriminate" her. Patterson rejected this assertion too. Throughout several days of cross-examination, Patterson's voice largely remained level as she answered prosecutors' questions. But during re-examination by her barrister, Colin Mandy SC, her voice became choked when asked about the need for her to pack her daughter's bag for a ballet rehearsal on the Monday after the lunch. The prosecution asserted this was in fact never required, but Patterson reaffirmed under re-examination that it was. Patterson's voice again cracked when discussing her son's flying lesson, explaining she did not cancel it following the lunch as he was "really passionate" about flying and "I just didn't want to disappoint him". The defence also asked about contradictions that arose during Patterson's cross-examination, such as her claim she had had an appointment in September 2023 to explore gastric-bypass surgery at a Melbourne clinic that did not in fact offer it. Patterson told the court that in 2023, she had believed the clinic offered gastric-band surgery, but on Thursday said she was "obviously mistaken". She told the court she had also intended to explore liposuction options. Mandy then asked Patterson about the sixth beef Wellington she cooked, which the prosecution has alleged was prepared in case her estranged husband attended the lunch and she could poison him as well. Patterson told the court she simply had an extra steak because of the way the eye fillets she bought were packaged. "I had five twin packs, I put two of the twin packs in the freezer and just decided to use the other six, I had enough ingredients ... so I did that," she said. The trial continues. - ABC

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Social media videos promoting ways to game the KiwiSaver system
Inland revenue figures show a record number of hardship withdrawals from KiwSaver is the past year. Between July 2024 and April 2025, more than $389 million's been taken out of KiwiSaver for financial hardship reasons. That's up from $300m on the year before. People can access KiwiSaver retirement funds in significant financial hardship, including for example to pay for food, power or palliative care. However a fund manager told Checkpoint there is a multitude of social media videos full of workarounds to help people qualify for a hardship withdrawls and effectively game the system. General Manager for Kiwisaver Fisher Funds, David Boyle spoke to Lisa Owen.