POL00046224
POL00046224
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POLTD/1011/0186
OFFENCE(s)
1. Theft - Contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968
2. False Accounting - Contrary to Section 17 (1) of the Theft Act 1968
3. Fraud by false representation (Fraud Act 2006 - Section 2)
4, Fraud by failing to disclose information (Fraud Act 2006 - Section 3)
5. Fraud by abuse of Position (Fraud Act 2006 - Section 4)
Name: Khayyam ISHAQ
Rank: sub postmaster Identification Code: 4
Office: Birkenshaw FAD Code 163 306
Age: Date of Birth:
Service: 2 years 7 months. : Date Service Commenced: 5 July 2008
Personnel Printout: At Appendix: C
Nat Ins No:
Home Address:
Suspended: Suspended on 8 February 2011 on the authority of
Andrew Carpenter - Contract Manager
To be prosecuted by: Royal Mail Group (including Post Office Ltd)
Designated Prosecution David Pardoe, Senior Security Manager Fraud Team
Authority:
Discipline Manager: Paul X Williams - Contract Manager
Corporate Security
Criminal Law Team
These papers refer to a shortage in the accounts at Birkenshaw Post Office branch. Mr Khayyam ISHAQ
the identified person named in the pre amble of this report is the sub postmaster and there is one other
member of staff, Mr Limair LIAQUAT.
The personnel file and P356 data was requested and can be found in Appendix C at the rear of this file.
The stakeholder notification was prepared and sent to the Stakeholder. I have also spoken with the
Stakeholder and advised him of the current situation.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
b
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
Ons" February 2011, Denis WATSON of the Network Support Field Team attended Birkenshaw Post
Office branch to undertake a check of the cash. The purpose of the visit was to verify that the amount of
cash held at the Post Office branch was correct.
The auditor arrived at the branch at approximately 08:45 am and introduced himself to the sub
postmaster who allowed him access to the secure area. A count of the cash took place and revealed a
shortage of £536. The balance snapshot (SB/3) showed a nett discrepancy shortage of £2569.19.
These findings were reported to Paul WILLIAMS (Contract Manager) who requested a full audit take
place. The purpose of this audit was to verify financial assets due to Post Office Ltd®. At the end of the
audit a report was produced detailing the findings at Birkenshaw Post Office branch (DW/1).
The branch operates a single stock unit (AA) for counter services and there is a stock unit for the ATM.
A P32 balance was constructed and the physical cash on hand was checked against the declared cash
on the Office snapshot.
The breakdown of the Audit findings is set in the table below.
Amount Comment
£ 12.90 (+) Identified as a shortage difference in the stock figures
£ 21181.54 (-) Discrepancy as per office snapshot
£ 21168.64 (-) Total Shortage
Andrew CARPENTER (Contract Manager), made a decision to precautionary suspend Mr ISHAQ and the
branch was closed pending transfer on Friday 11" February 2011.
Mr ISHAQ was contacted on 2 March 2011 and agreed to attend a voluntary taped interview under
caution.
On 7" April 2014 I attended at Bradford South Delivery Office accompanied by my colleague, Andrew
WISE, Fraud Investigator. Mr ISHAQ attended with his solicitor Mr Musa PATEL. We introduced
ourselves to both Mr ISHAQ and Mr PATEL and our identity cards were shown. The reason for the
interview had previously been explained to Mr ISHAQ.
Interview with Khayyam ISHAQ
At 12.13 I interviewed Mr Khayyam ISHAQ at Bradford South Delivery Office Ripley Street Bradford
BD5 7RS. Present throughout the interview was Mr Andrew WISE Fraud Investigator. Mr ISHAQ
requested the presence of legal representation and Musa PATEL (Solicitor) attended on his behalf. Form
GS001 (Identifying Mark SB/1) was completed, signed and dated by Mr ISHAQ and is associated at
Appendix B. Mr ISHAQ declined the offer of having a friend present. Form GS003 (Identifying Mark
SB/2) was completed, signed and dated by Mr ISHAQ and is associated in Appendix C.
O74
The interview was taped recorded, covered two tapes and sealed with master tape seals 676842 and
97 /402870843 (SB/11 and SB/12). A typed tape summary (SB/13 and SB/14) has since been prepared, a
copy of which is now at pages 12. to 332 The working tapes are associated in Appendix B of this file. I
have retained the Master Tapes. A notebook entry of the interview was made and is associated in
Appendix B of this file (Identifying Mark SB/15).
At the beginning of the interview Mr ISHAQ was asked for an explanation for the audit discrepancy on 8
February 2011.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
5
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
He explained that he did not know how the discrepancy occurred. He stated that he only balanced the
stamps and the stock on the counter and never balanced the main safe. He also said that during the
audit the figure went from £17,000 to £18,000 and when the audit was completed three days later, the
final figure was £21,000.
Mr ISHAQ denied that he was given the opportunity to re check the audit findings and was simply told
“this is what we have found, sign here”.
During the interview Mr ISHAQ confirmed that he became sub postmaster in July 2008 and he
employed one other member of staff, Limair LAQUAT who commenced employment in August 2010.
Mr LIAQUAT worked Monday to Friday 10 am to 4 pm. Mr ISHAQ opened the branch and worked until
Mr LIAQUAT attended for duty and similarly he worked the hours after Mr LIAQUAT completed his duty.
He also stated that Mr LIAQUAT was still under training.
Mr ISHAQ confirmed that there are three counter positions but they only used two and he used the
middle counter position. He confirmed that they did not share passwords and he would temporally lock
his screen when he was not using his Horizon terminal. He said that he considered himself competent
with Post Office transactions.
Mr ISHAQ was asked to explain how he how he produced a balance. He began by saying that he was
never shown the “back office” work and he learnt from the previous sub postmaster. He then explained
that they would produce the daily reports and count the cash. He stated that prior to commencing the
balance he never printed off a Horizon balance snapshot, he then stated that he had printed of a
balance snapshot before but never for a balance.
Mr ISHAQ stated that he completed the Branch Trading Statement (BTS) and confirmed that they
balanced the cash and stock once a month when the Branch Trading Statement was produced. He also
stated that he would complete the daily work. Although he stated that Mr LIAQUAT never worked
passed his finishing time of 4 pm, he said that he worked extra hours when required and has helped
him complete the BTS.
Mr ISHAQ confirmed that when he produced the BTS he physically counted the cash in the small safe
and the working cash held in the drawer, this figure would then be added to cash in the main safe.
Similarly he would count and account for the stock in the same way. However the figures used for the
cash and stock in the main safe were the result of derived figures. When he received a cash or stock
remittance he would add the figure to his original starting figure onto the sheet of paper he used to
keep a record. When asked if he still had the records he stated that he did not keep them.
It was said to him that when he took over the Post Office branch the cash and stock was correct and
therefore when he received his remittances, these remittances would be checked and his derived figures
would be accurate. He replied that he never checked the original cash and stock when taking over the
branch he just signed to say it was correct. Also he said that he had never checked any remittances
received at the branch because as they had come from Post Office Ltd they must be correct.
He was then asked how the branch balanced. He replied that he thought it always showed a loss. He
further explained that the losses were £30 to £40 and in October 2010 he had a loss for £1400 that he
settled centrally and the next shortage was £400 in January 2011.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
¢
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
Mr ISHAQ was asked who performed the cash declarations. He replied that they would be done between
half past four and five o'clock and that either he or Mr LIAQUAT would complete the declaration. He
clarified that Mr LIAQUAT completed the cash declaration when he stayed after four o'clock on some
occasions, but normally it would be him.
He then explained how he counted the cash and the bulk cash was pre counted and he had notes
indicating how much bulk coin there was, he would then enter the figures onto the Horizon system. He
was aware that before he printed off the cash declaration, the Horizon system would indicate if there
was a discrepancy in the cash at the branch. He then stated that he did not have any large
discrepancies in the figures.
The £1400 discrepancy in October 2010 was discussed and as an example, it was said that if the cash
was out by £300 in the first week, what did he do? He replied that he looked at the transactions, the
stamps were ok but he could not find the discrepancy.
Mr ISHAQ confirmed that he did not contact the NBSC helpline for any assistance.
He was shown the BTS for October TP06 (SB/7) and this showed a discrepancy shortage of £1064.56
and he had settled this discrepancy centrally and he agreed that his accounts would be straight.
He was then shown the BTS for TP 07 (SB/8) that had a discrepancy shortage of £4214, the BTS for
TPO8 (SB/9) had a discrepancy shortage of £3658 and BTS TP 09 (SB/10) had a discrepancy shortage
of £479. He was asked how he would make good the losses, for TP 07 (SB/8) and TP 08 (SB/9) he had
contacted Chesterfield but how did he account for the middle two.
He replied for that amount he would have contacted Chesterfield. He was asked if he had rolled the loss
of £4211 for TP 07 (SB/9) into BTS TP 08 (SB/9). Although he did say that he may have done, he then
stated that every loss he had, he had contacted Chesterfield.
Mr ISHAQ denied stealing any money belonging to Post Office Ltd and also denied inflating his cash on
hand to cover discrepancies in the accounts.
The tape came to an end, Master tape seal 071401 was signed and new tapes were inserted and the
interview continued.
At the beginning of the next tape, it was explained that Mr ISHAQ had a conference with his solicitor
and we used the time to check his account with Chesterfield. Mr ISHAQ was informed that Chesterfield
had confirmed that the discrepancy for £1065 and £479 had both been settled centrally. There is no
record for the discrepancies of £4211 and £3658.
Mr ISHAQ then asked if he could explain and stated that he was on long term medication for another
problem and sometimes forgot things. He would then remember a short time later or a day or two
later. He went on to explain the discrepancy for £4211. He said that the balance was performed by both
he and Mr LIAQUAT. He stated that Mr LIAQUAT had forgotten to count £4,000 of cash that was on the
side and the balance showed a loss. When they found the cash after they had completed the balance,
they made good the loss with the money.
_POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
q
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
He then said that he thought the same thing happened with the second balance. He sometimes left Mr
LIAQUAT alone to do the balance for training purposes and he has missed out counting the cash as he
was not aware of “all the places” where the cash was kept.
Mr ISHAQ was asked when was the last time that Mr LIAQUAT had helped complete the BTS as he only
helped occasionally and now he has helped complete two BTS one after the other and made the same
mistake. He replied that he had no record of when Mr LIAQUAT worked late.
It was said to him that it was difficult to believe that the same mistake happened twice, he replied that
he didn’t count all the cash himself and that the cash in one of the drawers was not counted and it had
happened on two occasions.
Mr ISHAQ confirmed that he used the figures on the bulk stamps and stock but he no longer had the
papers with the figures on. A discussion took place on how he arrived at these figures for the balance
and he then stated that he printed a balance snapshot to cross reference the amount of stamps on
hand compared to what the Horizon system states he should have.
lt was pointed out to him that he had previously stated that he did not print a Horizon balance
snapshot. He confirmed that he did print a balance snapshot and would make an adjustment if there
was a discrepancy.
He reiterated that he did not physically count the bulk stock and could not recall receiving any
transaction corrections in relation to stock.
Mr ISHAQ was shown an adjustment of stock print t out (SB/4). The print out was explained and he
was informed that the printed figures on the Horizon snapshot print out SB/3 are what the Horizon
system says you should have and the auditors have written next to the figures the actual volume in the
branch.
It was further explained that he had previously said that on the 8 February 2011 the discrepancy was
£17,000 or £18,000. This amount was the cash amount between what is claimed to be held in the
branch compared to the actual amount held after the figures had been amended as shown on the
adjustment to stock SB/4.
Mr ISHAQ was asked by his solicitor if he had any explanation. He replied that he went on the figures
he had written on his sheets of paper. He put forward what he said was a possibility, he said that when
he was away for a month, a previous employee closed the Post Office and walked out, they could have
taken the stamps. He confirmed that this happened in February 2009 and he could have been carrying
the loss from then.
It was said to him that when he took over the Post Office in February 2008, he signed and checked all
the cash and stock in the branch. He replied that he just signed for the Post Office and did not check the
cash and stock.
A discussion took place regarding how many stamps he sold to business, how much did he order. He
could offer no satisfactory explanations to how many stamps he sold or order for local businesses.
He went on to explain that in February 2009 he had two females working for him and when they left,
he informed the Post Office and when he did cash declaration he found amounts he could not account
for. But he then confirmed that he had made the amount “good”.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
yo
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
Mr ISHAQ was then shown the stock on hand (SB/6) completed by the auditor and the Final Balance
Horizon print out dated 11 February 2011 (SB/5). It was pointed out that these figures had been
agreed by the interim sub postmaster as being correct.
Mr ISHAQ was asked if he was willing to undergo a voluntary search of his home address. He consulted
with his solicitor and the request was turned down. His solicitor stated that the interview was voluntary
and they had complied throughout the interview. Although it was explained to Mr PATEL the reason for
requesting a search, he replied that the purpose of a search normally takes place prior or immediately
after an arrest. He also said that Mr ISHAQ although married, lived with his father and mother, who
were both ill, his father had an heart condition and his mother suffered from diabetes’s and they did not
wish to put any extra pressure on them. Andrew DALEY was contacted and the situation explained to
him why permission was not given for a search to take place. After due consideration of all the facts, he
agreed and gave authorisation for a search not to take place.
Mr ISHAQ was asked when the money could be repaid and replied that the business was up for sale
and repayment would be made from the proceeds of the sale.
The interview was summarised and Mr PATEL agreed that it was a fair summary.
Mr ISHAQ was informed that he may have rendered himself liable to prosecution and was given the
second caution. He was also given the opportunity to clarify anything that he had said during the
interview or add anything, but declined the offer.
Master tape seal 071402 was signed, the tape sealed and the tape machine was switched off
To summarise:
> Mr ISHAQ denied inflating his stock on hand to cover the discrepancy.
> Mr ISHAQ denied falsifying the branch accounts.
>» Mr ISHAQ denied stealing any funds belonging to Post Office Ltd.
> Mr ISHAQ co-operated throughout the interview.
NPA and antecedent forms have been completed and copies are associated at Appendix C.
Business and Procedural weakness’
* Due to the circumstances given in explanation of the audit shortage, at this moment
in time I can see no failures in security supervision, procedures or product integrity
that should be brought to the attention of the Contract Manager.
In Conclusion
Mr ISHAQ is a married man with three children all aged under five years of age, he lives with his family
at his parents address. The Post Office and retail business is owned by him and his brother who is also
his business partner. He has been sub postmaster for two and a half years before being suspended. He
employs one other member of staff who he states is still under training.
He denied stealing any monies belonging to Post Office Ltd, inflating his stock on hand to cover any
discrepancies and denied falsifying his Branch Trading Statements.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00046224
POL00046224
/
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
He could give no satisfactory answers to why the stock on hand had been inflated by such an amount.
He stated that he only ever physically counted the cash and stock in the small safe and what was in the
counter drawers. He further stated that he used deprived figures for the cash and stock held in the
main safe and had never physically counted this cash and stock.
He further explained that when he received a remittance, he assumed it was correct because it has.
come from Post Office Ltd. He said that he would add the remittance figure onto the figure already held
in the safe. However he no longer has any of this paperwork showing how he accounted for the main
safe.
He has previously settled centrally a discrepancy shortage in the BTS, with Chesterfield but there is no
record of any discrepancy for BTS TPO7 (SB/8) of £4211.21 or for BTS TPO8 (SB/9) for £3658.13
being settled centrally.
The explanation put forward was that his member of staff had helped him complete the BTS and after
they had completed the BTS, they found £4,000 the member of staff had failed to notice was in a
drawer. This money had not been include in the balance when the BTS for TPO7 was completed and
said the same thing must have happened when doing the BTS for TPO8.
Mr ISHAQ also said that he was on long term medication for another problem and sometimes forgot
things and would only remember a short time later or in a couple of days.
He also admitted that he printed balance snapshots and knew how to adjust the short to rectify a
discrepancy after previously stating he did not print out balance snapshots.
He also denied that he checked the cash and stock on hand when he took over the Post Office branch
he just signed to say it was correct. He also stated that he was not given the opportunity by the
auditors to check the result of the audit, he was just told to sign.
Mr ISHAQ said he was in the process of selling the business and had a number of interested buyers and
the money would be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale.
Copies of all documents or exhibits mentioned in this report can be found contained within the
appropriate Appendix of this file, the originals are held at this office. This report in addition to the
summary tape transcripts has been sent electronically to Casework Management Team.
An abridged version of this report has not been produced for the discipline manager as Mr ISHAQ has
resigned to avoid termination.
This report is submitted for the present position to be noted and for consideration as to whether the
evidence is sufficient to support a prosecution. No doubt the file will be returned in due course with the
next appropriate course of action to be taken.
Stephen Bradshaw
Fraud Investigator ee
Post Office Ltd Security Team
413 May 2011
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL