POL00055170
POL00055170
Page 1 of 2
Jarnail A Singh
From: Marilyn Benjamin
Sent: 16 August 2010 15:13 *
To: Jarnail A Singh
Subject: FW: REGINA v SUSAN JANE RUDKIN
To see.
Marilyn
From: Graham C Ward
Sent: 16 August 2010 15:12
To: Marilyn Benjamin
Subject: RE: REGINA v SUSAN JANE RUDKIN
Jarnail
Thank-you for sight of the letter from Richard Nelson Solicitors.
I recall speaking with Charlotte Knight back in July but to the best of my memory, it related to the issue of the £6K
deducted from Mr Rudkin's salary which I was able to arrange with the RART (Regional Asset Recovery Team) for the
amount to be offset against the Confiscation Order against Mrs Rudkin.
If the Rudkin’s financial situation was mentioned during this conversation (but I have no recollection of this), I may
well have indicated that a certificate of inadequacy was an option, as this is the process if the defendant's financial
situation has changed since an order was originally made, in terms of equity from realisable assets. However I cannot
see that this is the case in this matter as their letter states that the value of the business is still £400K, which is the
same value detailed in Ged Harbinson’s $16(3) statement dated the 6" July 2009. The problem here is the issue of
realising the value of the asset.
As I have indicated in other cases, once a confiscation order is made, payment and any issues relating to payment are
a matter for the defendant, the RART and the court. Whilst we would expect to be appraised of developments in
these cases, any issues are strictly between the court and the defendant. If we are asked for our view on extensions
to pay, then clearly we are likely to taxe a common sense approach, given many of our defendant's assets are leases
or businesses which in the current economic climate can be difficult to realise.
At the time this order was made, it was agreed that the equity in the Ibstock Post Office®
£146K, which still appears to be the case. In addition a Vauxhall Vectra car, registration! 3! was also listed as an
asset and which had a value of approx £6,500. These available assets were recorded as Such on the court 505a asset
list, but whilst the issue of the Post Office® is well documented, I have not seen any mention of the Rudkin’s selling
this car, which would raise some equity to service the order.
the region of
My opinion here is that a certificate of inadequacy is not the way forward but perhaps a further limited extension to
allow the Rudkin’s time to sell their business may be appropriate, but again I would stress that this is a matter for the
court to decide.
Regards
Graham Ward POST.
Accredited Financial Investigator OFFICE
Fraud Strand
Post Office® Ltd Security, PO BOX 1, Croydon, CR? 1WN
16/08/2010
graham. c.wardi
Funk seroRe
yOu PRINT
Confidential Information
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorised review, usc, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you arc
not the intended recipient please contact me by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
Benjamin
Sent: 16 August 2010 10:37
To: Post Office Security
Ce: Graham C Ward
Subject: REGINA v SUSAN JANE RUDKIN
Please see the attached advice and letter from Richard Nelson in the above case.
Jarnail Singh
Senior Lawyer
Criminal Law Division
Tel Nol,
16/08/2010
POL00055170
POL00055170
Page 2 of 2