CrimeEdith was the manager of a care home near Newcastle. She was responsible not only for the care of the residents but also for custody of their money, which was kept in her office under an arrangement referred to as "residents' purses". However the proprietors, rather than Edith, were responsible for the accounting records and financial management of the care home.
Edith became close to many of the elderly residents in the home, some of whom suffered from senile dementia. She accompanied one resident, Martin, to his branch of the Newcastle Building Society where, at her suggestion, he drew a cheque from his savings account in favour of Acme Used Car Co which Edith then used to purchase a car for herself.
A few months later Martin died and when his family discovered that most of his savings had been spent, and in particular learned about the cheque to Acme Used Car Co, they alleged that Edith had taken advantage of Martin's mental weakness to steal from him.
Edith accepted that she had told Martin that the cheque was required in payment of his care home fees but asserted that:- (i) she had been told by the proprietors that Martin did owe fees to the care home,
(ii) Edith was herself owed money by the care home, and
(iii) the proprietors had suggested that to Edith that she should obtain a cheque from Martin's building society account so that the amount of the cheque could be deducted from both the amount Martin owed to the care home and the amount the care home owed to Edith. The proprietors of the care home were in dispute with Edith regarding the sums due to her, and this dispute had led to civil litigation which was ongoing. The proprietors could not confirm that they had made any arrangement with Edith regarding Martin's outstanding fees.
There were also other allegations of thefts by Edith from residents' cash held under the "residents' purses" arrangements in the care home office.
We were instructed by the defence to critically examine the accounting records of the care home in respect of fees owed by Martin and sums due to Edith, and to comment upon the "residents' purses" arrangements.
Case ReportCrimeArthur ran a cafe in Rotherham. One day in January 2004, whilst in his cafe, he sold half a kilogramme of cocaine to Peter - not realising that Peter was an undercover police officer. Arthur was subsequently convicted of an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In the confiscation proceedings that followed the Regional Asset Recovery Team calculated Arthur's benefit of his 'criminal lifestyle' as nearly £400,000. We were instructed by the defence to critically examine the RART report.
Case ReportCrimeIn April 2004 Brian was offered a job as manager of a public house in Solihull. He had many years experience in the pub trade but had never managed a pub before. He explained to the pub owner that he would need some help with book-keeping. The owner explained a system of record keeping and banking which he had himself devised. When the quarterly VAT return was due in July the owner checked the records and found the there appeared to be a substantial shortfall in the bankings. He complained to the police and Brian was charged with theft of the shortfall and false accounting. We were instructed to review the accounting records and bankings on behalf of the defence.
Case ReportFraudCharles had a brilliant business idea and, in 2000, set up a company with two friends to exploit it - initially in the UK but also in Australia, Canada America and other countries. The plan was to sell to the public for just over £100 computers worth £600, but in return retain a link with the customers so that they became virtually a captive market for the sale of other goods, such as cars and kitchen equipment, at discounted prices. Charles could buy the computers for £450 and, once he had sufficient customers, planned to agree bulk purchase deals enabling him to make significant profits on the subsequent sales of the cars and other goods while still offering a substantial discount on retail prices.
At the same time, once the operation had gathered momentum the price of the computers would be steadily increased until it exceeded the £450 cost. Charles planned to sell only the first 250,000 computers at below cost price.
Unfortunately start up funds were very limited and the computer manufacturers would give no credit to Charles' new company. However he considered that by taking payment in advance from customers and growing the business exponentially he would manage to supply each customer with a computer 8 weeks after receiving their payment (by using funds received from later customers to pay for the earlier customers' computers).
Sadly the company ceased trading after 8 months when the Department of Trade and Industry intervened following complaints from the public. By this time approximately 18,000 customers had paid in advance for a computer but only just over 1,000 of these had actually received one. However the company had been able to pay Charles £150,000 for the intellectual rights to his brilliant business idea and had met the costs of overseas business trips by Charles and his family in preparation for opening in foreign markets. Charles and his friends were arrested and charged with fraudulent trading.
We were instructed by the defence to give an opinion on the viability of Charles' brilliant business idea.
Case ReportCrimeIn 2002 Daniel met a man in a pub in Norwich who offered to sell him a nearly new Mercedes car, worth approximately £30,000, for £4,000 cash in hand. Daniel bought the car. Later the same year Daniel traded-in the Mercedes with the same man and, on payment of a further £1,000 in cash, acquired a nearly new BMW worth approximately £35,000.
Some months later Daniel was stopped whilst speeding on Norwich by-pass in his BMW. Police enquiries revealed the car had been stolen and, by checking Daniel's motor insurance history, the police also uncovered his previous ownership of the Mercedes (which also proved to have been stolen). Daniel was convicted on two counts of handling stolen property.
Confiscation proceedings were initiated. A report from the local Regional Asset Recovery Team, relying upon the statutory assumptions contained in section 72AA (4) Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as inserted by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995) was prepared. This calculated Daniel's benefit from crime as just over £250,000.
We were instructed by the defence to give an opinion on the validity of this benefit figure.
Case ReportCivilA few days after an armed robbery in which a gang had made off with cash of over £1 million, Frank was arrested and his home was searched. Cash of over £100,000 was found in Frank's house and this was seized by the police. Frank offered no explanation to the police for the presence of this cash. But the police could find no evidence of any involvement by Frank in the armed robbery, although he was a prime suspect.
However during the search of his house the police had found documents that suggested that Frank owned various residential properties, or at least had received rent from them, and that he had purchased a villa on a Mediterranean holiday island. They also found various bank statements and vehicle registration documents.
Frank was charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a charge of which he was acquitted when the matter came to court the following year.
The file was then passed to the Assets Recovery Agency. They obtained a Court Order restraining Frank's assets and appointing an interim receiver under civil recovery powers contained in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court Order referred, in particular, to the cash seized from Frank's home, to the various residential properties and the Mediterranean villa which the police had identified, and to certain other assets including bank accounts and motor vehicles.
The interim receiver was obliged, under the terms of the Court Order, to establish whether these assets were 'recoverable property', in other words whether they were assets that had been obtained by unlawful conduct (in effect, proceeds of crime) or assets that represented such proceeds.
Ten months later the interim receiver reported to the Court that he had indeed established to his own satisfaction that the residential properties (including the Mediterranean villa) and other assets itemised in the Court Order had been acquired by Frank, and that Frank had no legitimate income which would have enabled his purchase of them. In short, the interim receiver concluded that all the itemised residential properties and assets were 'recoverable property'.
In reaching this conclusion the interim receiver had considered all the information he had been able to obtain concerning Frank's financial affairs in the 12 year period up to the date upon which the Court Order had been made.
The interim receiver alluded to Frank's receipt of state benefits, including income support, in earlier years at a time when he clearly had assets of an amount which made him ineligible for those benefits, and to the armed robbery which had occurred 18 months prior to his appointment under the Court Order.
Frank did not wish to contest the interim receiver's conclusion regarding the cash seized at his home, nor in respect of certain other assets which were not of significant value.
However Frank did wish to challenge the interim receiver's conclusion that the residential properties, including the Mediterranean villa, were 'recoverable property'.
We were instructed to critically review the interim receiver's report and conclusions in respect of the residential properties.
Case ReportCivilGeorge was talking to his friend Peter in the pub one day. George had known Peter for a couple of years on a fairly casual basis and understood Peter to be a successful local businessman and entrepreneur.
Peter was talking about his plant hire business, Huntersglen Plant Hire Ltd. As it happened, plant hire was a subject George knew something about as he had worked in that field himself and still had a number of relevant business contacts.
As a result of their common interest in plant hire, Peter invited George to purchase a one third shareholding in Huntersglen Plant Hire Ltd for £15,000. Peter told George that the company "had assets of £70,000". Peter also told George that George's investment of £15,000 would provide additional working capital for the company to enable it to expand and that George's contacts could prove invaluable to the company's future business.
George did not ask to see the accounts of the company, nor did he make any further enquiries. George did not seek professional advice of any kind. He agreed to buy the shareholding and paid Peter £15,000.
Unfortunately the company did not prosper and ceased trading just over a year after George had purchased his shareholding. George lost all the money he had invested in the company. George then sought professional advice. As a result George discovered that statutory accounts for the company showed that, a short while before his share purchase, the company had assets of £71,000 but liabilities of £61,000, leaving net assets of only £10,000.
In the light of this George sued Peter for misrepresentation and claimed damages of £15,000, the money he had lost.
We were instructed to value a one third shareholding of Huntersglen Plant Hire Ltd, at the date George purchased it, on the alternative bases that (i) the company had net assets of £70,000, and (ii) the company was in the financial position shown in the statutory accounts.
George's solicitor planned to quantify George's loss as the difference between these two valuations, if this proved to be less than £15,000.
Case ReportFraudHazel was a single mother with four children in 1999. She claimed, and received, Income Support.
In April 2002 Mike, the father of her youngest child, moved in with her. Mike had a full time job in a local factory on a modest wage. Hazel was unsure how long Mike might stay with her and the children. She did not inform the Benefits Agency that Mike had moved in and she continued to receive Income Support.
When the Income Support came up for review Hazel signed a form saying that there had been no change in her circumstances.
In 2006 Mike applied for a new credit card and asked for an additional card on the same account to be issued to Hazel. On the credit card application form Mike gave the same address for himself and for Hazel.
Over a year later the Department of Work and Pensions contacted Hazel saying that they had information that she was claiming Income Support to which she was not entitled because she was living with a partner who was in full time employment.
Hazel was interviewed under caution and subsequently charged with failure to notify a change in circumstances contrary to section 111A(1A) Social Security Administration Act 1992. The prosecution calculated that Income Support of £32,000 had been overpaid to Hazel and the matter was sent for trial in the Crown Court.
Case ReportCrimeIrene was a bright and lively middle-aged woman looking for something new when she purchased the Post Office and village store at Littleknowne. She had never run a Post Office before but she was told she would receive the training she needed. The shop had accommodation above which would enable her to offer bed and breakfast to visitors to the attractive rural area.
But her new life turned out to be very demanding. Although she employed part time staff, running the Post Office and the bed and breakfast was hard work. The weekly 'balance' on a Wednesday evening was a particular struggle and - try as she might - she found the lottery ticket figures never looked right. The Post Office Horizon accounting system, operated via a touch-screen terminal on the Post Office counter, was difficult to follow.
To get a 'balance' Irene would find it necessary to enter a 'rem-in' or a 'rem-out' or several rem-ins and rem-outs until the figure balanced - but even then it made no sense to her.
Early one crisp sunny Friday morning she had a visit from a team of Post Office auditors. They closed the Post Office counter temporarily to conduct an audit check. They looked at her Horizon figures, and her stock of lottery scratchcards, and told Irene there was a shortfall of over £16,000. They told her the Post Office would need to remain closed until more senior inspectors could visit on Monday. On Monday the inspectors interviewed Irene under caution about the apparent shortfall. The Post Office, they decided, would remain closed until further notice.
Almost exactly 12 months later Irene was to appear at Knownegate Crown Court charged with the theft of over £16,000 from Post Office Ltd.
Case ReportFraudJohn ran a business hiring out 'stretch limos' in Cardiff for weddings, 'hen nights' and similar functions. But business was not good and he had nowhere secure to park the cars. So he bought a house with a drive and a bit of land, with the aid of a mortgage. He couldn't make ends meet and applied for tax credits. Over the phone he told the Tax Credits Office that he was making "bugger all" from his business.
Case ReportMoney LaunderingKeith had been convicted of illegal money lending - being a 'loan shark' - over a number of years and also of benefit fraud and money laundering (by converting monies received in repayment of illegal loans). It was alleged that, as well as lending money without the necessary Consumer Credit Act licence, he had charged extortionate interest rates and had used threats of violence and intimidation in collecting loan repayments. He was subject to confiscation proceedings on the basis of a 'criminal lifestyle' and the prosecutor alleged that Keith had 'hidden assets'.
Case Report 
Profile