Financial Investigation Policy Log
Case Number: POLTD/0809/000
Date
Text
21/08/08
An Investigation has commenced into Susan RUDKIN She is
under investigation for the suspected theft of £43,700.00
from IBSTOCK Post Office® branch 223/217 This
investigation is for the purpose of confiscation. The
investigation 1 be proportionate, have a legal
framework, accountable and necessary.
It will follow the legal requirements of the Proceeds of
Crime Act The Police & Criminal Evidence Act, Criminal
Procedures & Investigations Act and the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act. It will also be European
Convention on Human Rights Compliant. Mr D Pardoe is my
supervising officer and he will be kept aware of the
investigation and where necessary direct the
investigation in accordance with the above legislation.
POL00050244
POL00050244
Case Summary:
Audit Deficiency. Sub-postmaster (Michael Rudkin) is
Chairman of the Negotiating Panel for the National
Federation of Sub-postmasters. Branch is managed by his
wife Susan Rudkin, who has admitted to the theft of £40k.
Mrs Rudkin when interviewed stated that since February
2007 she covered losses and paid funds into her bank
account to pay bills.
Mrs Rudkin said that she had let things get out of
control as she was running the private business, the PO
counter and the sorting office staff (14 postmen). She
admitted to taking PO money and paying into Lloyds Bank
business accounts to meet bills. Also the ating the
cash to cover up weekly losses in the PO. It was not
possible to establish a firm date when this started but
she says it is since the robbery at the office some two
years ago. Paperwork from office shows that the figure
was around £24k short in September (20077). Total
difference in cash on audit was £43700. She confirmed
that no staff were aware of what she was doing and her
husband had not worked in the PO for over a year and he
was unaware of the shortage until today as he played no
part in running the office.
Postmaster suspended 20/8/08
09/09/08
Some Suspicions about the robbery in January 2006. this
arose from statement by suspect in interview. It was not
followed up by the investigator, however as S Rudkin has
ssed to the theft of money I believe that this
should be looked at again. Details from the security
advisor at the time of the robbery suggests that there
were some suspicions at the time about the details given
by S Rudkin
11/09/08
I believe that POLTD should protect itself against this
loss by restraint. The suspect is distancing her husband
from the offence even though the money was paid into a
joint bank account. There are outstanding debts of 37000
and an intention to raise capital against the property
when I am currently unsure of the benefit obtained in the
crime.
Spoke with Dave Pardoe about Restraint and although he
agreed he asked that I submit to him the details by Email
18/09/08
Email from Dave agreeing to restraint and further
investigation
Have discussed with John S and advised on our potential
courses of action; please continue on both points -
restraint and consideration of revisit of previous
incidence. The allocated Fraud Advisor must apprise the
appropriate stakeholder of the planned activity.
18/09/08
Tc to Juliet.
Explained current position and she agrees restraint
22/09/08
e Attended Court
* Orders signed
POL00050244
POL00050244
Financial Investigation Policy Log
Case Number:
Date
Text
POL00050244
POL00050244