POL00054311
POL00054311
To: <jarnail.a.singh!
Sonn tongmant.... SRO
cc:
Subject. FW: REGINA v SEEMA MISRA GUILDFORD CROWN COURT
TRIAL - 15TH MARCH 2010
Jarnail
When I left yesterday Gareth was waiting for a return call from Charles Mclachlan; it appears they
have agreed a telephone call, as below.
Jon
We need some help with analysis and witness statement generation for Gareth, would you be .
available Monday or Tuesday to visit us and help?
Kind regards
Penny
Penny Thomas
Security Analyst, Customer Services
Fujitsu Services Retail & Royal Mail Group Account
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 8SN
Web: _ http://uk.fuiitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22, Baker Street, London W1U 3BW
This E-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be
privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this E-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is
virus-free.
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 04 March 2010 16:48
To: charles.mclachlan
Ce: Thomas Penny
Subject: REGINA v SEEMA MISRA GUILDFORD CROWN COURT TRIAL - 15TH MARCH 2010
Charles,
I've added my comments to your 5” Report (attached — comments are as Word revisions — mainly in
the far right hand column).
<<0303.5th interim technical expert's report to the Court 2010-02-25 v0 1 (2).doc>>
As discussed briefly I've also now got hold of the transaction logs for December 2006 to December
2007. These amount to a total of nearly half a million transactions (431,490 to be precise).
What I have done is searched through them looking for all examples of Debit Card transactions which
POL00054311
POL00054311
have not been successful, since this seems to be one of the defence’s main attacks on the system.
There are 92 such failed transactions for a total value of £117,149.98. I've analysed all those with an
individual value of more than £1,000 (leaving £6,113.55 worth that I've not analysed),
In all the cases I've analysed one of 3 things happened:
4. The Customer session was then settled by a Cheque (and so the failure must have been noticed
by the clerk)
2. The Customer session was abandoned (ie any good were returned and the transactions
cancelled and the only item from the session is the failed Debit Card payment).
3. I The Customer session was settled to Cash (which could have been accidental). However in all
such cases the transaction was subsequently reversed resulting in the cash also being reversed.
There are business rules that control whether transactions can be cancelled or if they have to be
committed and then reversed (which is the main difference between cases 2 and 3 above). I suspect
(but can't necessarily prove) that in case 2 the sessions were for purchase of Foreign Currency. I
case 3 the sessions were all for purchase of Premium Bonds.
I think this refutes the assertion that failed Debit Card Payments are the cause of the losses.
I'm not sure what further analysis to carry out. However I've identified some possible areas to pursue:
1. I've looked at Pouch Reversals (where cash or currency is packed for despatch to POL’s Cash
Centre) and the Pouch is subsequently Cancelled. This is a method by which cash losses can be
partially hidden and was mentioned in the defendant's interviews. For Dec 2006 there were no such
examples. -
2. Each night there should be a Cash Declaration made for each Stock Unit in the Branch
indicating the current cash‘in the till. It is also possible to look at all the cash movements for each
Stock Unit by looking at the Cash transactions. I've tried to compare the Cash movements in terms of
the Transactions and also in terms of differences in Declarations and there seems to be very little
correlation indicating that the cash declarations are probably inaccurate
3. As part of the monthly Balancing process, special transactions are recorded to reflect Stock
Adjustments and Discrepancies detected by the system as part of this process. These all result in the
system assuming that Cash it put into (or removed) from the Till to reflect these Adjustments /
Discrepancies. It may be worth examining these.
As arranged, I'll give you a ring at 12 noon tomorrow.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
FUJITSU
Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN
Te: GRO ]
POL00054311
POL00054311
(Note new external number -
old number will not work after 31/12/2009)
Mobile:
email:
Web: luk fulitsu,
ot Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW
‘This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be
privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is
virus-free. 0303.5th interim technical expert's report to the Court 2010-02-25, v0.1 (2).doc