POL00046505
POL00046505
Se
IN CONFIDENCE
Jarnail Singh
Senior Lawyer
Royal Mail Criminal Law Team
Post Office Ltd v Susan Jane Rudkin _ POLTD/0809/0101
Your original advice on this case is noted at pages 14 to 16 of these papers. Thank
you.
Due to the admissions made by Mrs Rudkin, to the theft of in excess of £43000, I
was instructed to revisit the case and in particular the reported robbery which took
place on 5" January 2006, in which the business has stood a loss of £58,000
(after appeal against culpability). The confidential Police reports can be found at
pages 26 to 31 of these papers.
I requested HORIZON data for this period (which showed nothing untoward) and
also obtained bank disclosure authority for the last 6 year’s bank accounts.
For ease of reference, I have scheduled the deposits into all the bank accounts and
this can be found at Appendix “B”. The graph on page 1 gives an indication of the
“monthly” deposits and it would be noted that the deposits prior to Robbery in
January 2006 are either on a par or higher than those after the robbery.
Mrs Rudkin admitted to using Post Office© money and depositing into bank
accounts from January 2007. It is now questioned as to where she obtained the
money to maintain the same amount of deposits prior to this date and indeed prior
to the robbery. Could this be an indication that she was using Post Office© money
prior to the robbery and in turn leads on to whether the robbery was in fact
genuine?
It may just be of course that business turnover reduced from January 2006 and
therefore she needed extra cash to cover the bills.
I wrote to Mrs Rudkin requesting that she attend a further interview regarding the
financial situation prior to the admitted thefts. I have since been in contact with
Richard Nelson solicitors (pages 33 to 35) who have notified me that Mrs Rudkin
does not wish to attend a further interview as they have concerns over her
deteriorating mental health.
Mr Rudkin has been put back in post and is repaying the Post Office© £1000 a
month from his remuneration.
The options, as I see it, would be to try and liaise with the Police with regard to
assistance in reinterviewing Mrs Rudkin on her financial situation or in deed just
n
POL00046505
POL00046505
a
ed asses
proceeding with the initial summons and charge. Should Mrs Rudkins condition be
so severe that it may hinder the business in getting her to court at all.
Perhaps you could advise on the best way forward in this case please, so that the
final decision on which action we take can be decided upon by the Senior Security
Mike Wilcox
Fraud Advisor
PLYMOUTH
29/01/2009