POL00044871
POL00044871
IN THE CROWN COURT INDICTMENT
AT MOLD TRIAL NO.
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION RELEVANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
16 (6)
OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
REGINA
Vv
HUGHIE NOEL THOMAS
STATEMENT DETAILS
Prepared and tendered by : Michael Francis MATTHEWS
Address : Post Office Ltd Investigation Team
PO Box1
Croydon
CR9 1N
Signature
Date : 18% April 2007
Prosecutor : Juliet MCFARLANE
Address : Principle Lawyer
Criminal Law Team
Royal Mail Group pic
6A Ecclestone Street
London
SW1W SLT
14
1.2
13
21
2.2
23
24
POL00044871
POL00044871
Statement of Information
I, Michael Francis Matthews a financial investigator currently employed by
Post Office Ltd, am accredited under Part 2 and Part 8 of the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002. This statement of information is further to;
a) A statement of information prepared by me and tendered by Juliet
McFarlane, Solicitor in this matter, in accordance with Section 16(3)
of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 dated the 16 January 2007 and
b) A further statement of information prepared and tendered by me in
accordance with Section 16(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
dated the 224 February 2007.
I say as follows: -
I am duly authorised to make this statement of information on behalf of the
prosecutor, who is The Solicitor to Royal Mail Group Plc, Criminal Law Team
and who has conduct of the proceedings in this matter. I make this statement
of information in accordance with Section 16 (6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act
2002.
Hughie Noel Thomas is the defendant in this matter
Extent of Benefit
Particular Criminal Conduct
I have reviewed the benefit figures from my previous statements to take into
account the increase in the value of money between January 2007and today’s
date.
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting. The
benefit to the defendant as a result of this count is £82,285.96. This figure is
obtained as follows;
The audit shortage of £48,454.87 from the Post Office® account.
Subpostmasters are immediately liable for losses in their branch account. As
a result of the false accounting the defendant obtained a pecuniary advantage
by failing to repay the loss and contined to earn remuneration as a
subpostmaster. Post Office Ltd would have terminated the defendants
contract to provide Post Office Services had they been aware of the true facts
in this matter.
The increase in the value of this money between the commission of the
offence and March 2007 (the latest month that Retail Price Index (RPI) figures
have been produced) is £3,306.80
Notes to 2.4 The figure is worked out as follows:
2.5
26
27
28
POL00044871
POL00044871
Period of Offending (RPI figure for September 2005) minus (RPI figure for
October 2004), divided by (RPI figure for October 2004), multiplied by £48,
454.87 and then divided by 2 (This is to deal with the unknown rate of the
increasing value of the shortage during the false accounting period).
Therefore 193.3 — 188.6 + 188.6 = 0.0249204 x £48, 454.87= £1207.51 +2 =
£603.75.
Period from end of offending to March 2007 (RPI figure for March 2007)
minus (RPI figure for November 2005), divided by (RPI figure for November
2005), multiplied by £48, 454.87. Therefore 204.4 — 193.60 + 193.60 =
0.0557851 x £48,454.87= £2,703.05
The sum of £28,519.76, which he was paid as remuneration, between
October 2004 and October 2005. Post Office Ltd paid this money as the
defendant provided Post Office Ltd Services. This money would not have
been paid had Post Office Ltd been aware of the true facts in this matter as
defendant's contract to provide services would have been suspended. The
amounts of the monthly payments are detailed on the schedule associated as
appendix 4
The increase in the value of this money between the commission of the
offence and November 2006, on a month-by-month basis is a total of
£2004.53. A schedule showing the relevant calculations is associated as
appendix 4.
The figures above have been calculated on the dates detailed in the
indictment. The exact date that the defendant incurred his first shortage and
as such benefited is not known, however the prosecution is content to accept
these dates for the purpose of confiscation, especially as the exact loss to the
victim in the case was established by audit.
The calculation of benefit derived by the defendant has been made on the
basis of the judgement of Mr Justice McCulloch in the High Court of Justice,
Queens Bench Division, in the matter of R v K (TLR 01/10/1990), namely, that
the benefit is the value of the property obtained. This judgement has been
followed by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in the matter of R v John
Adeyemi Layode, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division 12 March 1993
Summary of Benefit
Source Detail Amount
Particular Criminal Conduct Money short on audit £48,454 87
Increase in the value of that £3,306.80
money
Money paid as remuneration £28,519.76
Increase in the value of money £2004.53
paid in remuneration
Total Benefit £82,285.96
42
43
44
45
46
POL00044871
POL00044871
Available Amount
The property the former Post Office Gaerwen Isle of Anglesey LL60 6DB, has
been valued by Dafydd W Rowlands BSc Hons, MRICS. The value took into
account the work that has been carried out on the property by the defendant's
son since the sale to him, on the 3' October 2007. The market value then
was £120,000. Mr Rowlands is of the view, again taking into account the work
completed by the defendants son, that the value of the property would not
have increased between then and now.
We have been served a letter from Morgan Evans dated March 2006 in which
they quote a realistic market figure should be offers in the region of £125,000
In the defendants statement dated the 20 February 2007 Mr Thomas says
that, “ I approached Messrs Morgan Evans & Co a local experienced firm of
Estate Agents who suggested that an asking price might be £125,000” He
also goes on to say, “I knew that if I placed the property on the market with
that asking price I would receive offers somewhat lower. I did not feel that I
was acting inappropriately when, following discussion, I greed to sell the
property to my son for £100,000.
Mr Thomas States that his wife has a joint interest in the property but the
prosecution has not seen any evidence of her contributions to the payment of
the Asset.
Approximate amount that Gaerwen Post Office was undersold - £20,000
The increase in the value of this money between the October 2006 and March
2007 (the latest month that Retail Price Index (RPI) figures have been
produced) is £3,306.80
Notes to 4.5 The figure is worked out as follows: (RPI figure for March 2007)
minus (RPI figure for October 2006), divided by (RPI figure for October 2006),
multiplied by £20,000. Therefore 204.4 — 200.4 + 204.4 = 0.019960079 x
£20,000= £399.20
The increase in the value of the tainted gift - £399.20
Further to paragraph 9.6 in my statement of information dated the 16"
January 2007 pertaining to funds in an Alliance and Leicester account
(balance £4712.04). The prosecution accepts that there was an endowment
policy with Phoenix Life Insurance in the names Mr HN and Mrs EV Thomas,
which was surrendered. The prosecution has seen two remittance advices
from Phoenix, both in the sum of £2,835.12, one in respect of Mr NH Thomas
and the other in respect of Mrs EV Thomas. It also accepts that this money
forms a substantial amount of the balance in the Alliance and Leicester
account. What the prosecution has not seen is evidence of how the
endowment policy was paid for and as such is not in a position to say if Mrs
EV Thomas is entitled to 50% of the benefit of the policy.
47
48
POL00044871
POL00044871
Money thought to be in the Alliance & Leicester personal account -
£4712.04
Notwithstanding this the prosecution would have been content for Mrs EV
Thomas to realise the quarterly pension payments amounting to £76.05 per
quarter that have accumulated within the Alliance & Leicester account since it
was restrained. However we have been informed that no such payments have
been made.
Additionally the prosecution has confirmed since the statement dated the 22"¢
Feb 2006 that the defendant holds an annuity with Norwich Union that after
tax liabilities have been paid the Her Majesties Revenue and Customs would
be available for confiscation. The prosecution is advised that the annuity was
valued at £6819.64. The sum to be realised however after the payment of tax
liabilities is estimated to be in the region of £1,500
Money thought to be in the realisable from the Norwich Union Annuity -
£1500.00
5 Summary of Available Assets
Detail Amount
Tainted Gift in sale of Gaerwen Post Office £20,000.00
Increase in the value of money Tainted Gift £399.20
Alliance & Leicester personal account less 2x £4712.04
Money from Norwich Union approximately £1,500.00
TOTAL £26,611.24
Confiscation Order
If the Court accepts that the Defendant has benefited from the proceeds of
crime to the extent of £82,285.96 the Court should declare the benefit in that
amount, or in any other amount in respect of which the Court finds the
defendant has benefited.
The recoverable amount is an amount equal to the defendant’s benefit from
the conduct concerned. If the Defendant shows that the available amount is
less than the benefit, the court should make a confiscation order in that sum.
Effect of Compensation on Confiscation
The effect of Section 13 (5) of the Act permits the Court to make a
compensation order under section 130 of the Sentencing Act as if a
confiscation order had not been made.
If the defendant cannot pay both, compensation can be recovered from sums
paid in satisfaction of the confiscation order.
POL00044871
POL00044871
Royal Mail Group Pic request compensation in this case as follows:
Detail Amount
Money short on audit £48,454 87
Increase in the value of that money £3,306.80
Total £51,761.67
Any reply to this statement made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
should be served on Caernarfon Crown Court, and a copy sent to Royal Mail
Group plc, Legal Services, 6A Eccleston Street, LONDON, SW1W 9LT