POL00061322
POL00061322
Ged Harbinson To: Mike Wilcox/e/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
181092008 10:18 gypjcet Ew estock Sub Pos foe (e Restrain)
See below
Regards I
Ged (i Spread the word...__.
- UlapeVvine
Accredited Financial investigation Manager ~— ‘taking the cask out of crime
4 Post Office Ltd Fraud Strat
—--- Forwarded by Ged Harbinson/e/POSTOFFICE on 18/09/2008 10:18 —--
Dave Pardoe To: Ged Harbinson/e/POSTOFFICE
16/09/2008 08:48
Subject: Re: Ibstock Sub Post Office (re Restraint)
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.
Many thanks.
Regards
David Pardoe
Senior Security Manager Fraud Strand
Post Office Ltd Security Team
Hl GRO
Confidertial Information: This e-mail message & forthe sole use of the infenced recipient (s) and may contain
conitlentiatand privieged inbrm ation. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distrbuton is prohibited.
¥ jou are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply e-aailand destroy al copies of tre original message.
Hesse consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Ged Harbinson
(fa ‘ Ged Harbinson To: Dave Pardoe/e/POSTOFFICE:
- ce:
4
£4,
11/09/2008 10:28 Subject: Ibstock Sub Post Office (re Restraint)
Dave
The defendant was an assistant working at Ibstock Sub Post Office, 118-120 High Street, Ibstock,
LE67 6LJ. The incumbent Subpostmaster was the defendants Husband, Ernest Michael Rudkin who
had been in post since the 26” October 2000. An audit of the office accounts on the 20” August 2008
revealed a shortage in the office accounts of £43,856.89. As a result of the audit shortage, Mr Rudkin
was precautionary suspended from his position as Subpostmaster.
On the 20” August 2008, Post Office Investigators interviewed the defendant under caution. During
that interview the defendant stated that the office had been experiencing losses in the Post Office
accounts from approximately January 2006 and that she had been inflating the cash on hand figure in
the accounts to cover the shortages. She further stated during interview that she had taken cash from
the Post Office to cover payment of general bills, which had been paid it into a joint bank account held
with her husband. The defendant stated that she alone was responsible and that no one else had any
knowledge of the theft.
I believe that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle through having committed a criminal lifestyle
offence. This is because: I believe that the defendant has committed an offence(s) over a period of at
least six months and has benefited from this offence in total of not less than £5,000. It is, therefore,
my opinion that this is a case in which the court may apply the assumptions under section 10 of the
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 when assessing the extent of the benefit from criminal conduct. This will
bring into doubt the current equity in the property and business that they run and my assumption is
that the court will impose a significantly higher benefit figure that the £43,856.89 (which the court has
every right to do)
Intelligence shows that the defendant has known credit card debts and a personal loan, which
currently total just over £27,000.00.
Intelligence shows that the defendant husband (Ernest Michael Rudkin) has known credit card debts
which currently total just over £10,000.00.
The only asset currently identified i and registry title LT323060) and
this is in the joint names of the defendant and her husband. The property was purchased for
£150,000.00 in January 2001. The value of the property is now believed to be in the region of
£321,119 (Nationwide House Price Calculator) and £490,000.00 (estimate by defendant ) with an
outstanding mortgage in the region of £250,000.00.
I believe that if a restraint order is not made there is a real risk that these assets will be dissipated.
This is because of the serious nature of the alleged offences and the amount of public money
involved. Ernest Michael Rudkin has expressed to the investigator (Mike Wilcox) his intention to raise
funds against the equity in the property known as 118-120 High Street, Ibstock, LE67 6LJ. It has been
established that the defendant has credit card debts and a personal loan which total over £27,000.00
and in consequence I cannot be assured that any equity in the property will be held to service any
future confiscation order.
Further to this there is the issue of the robbery in January 2006 (referred to in interview). I have
spoken to the security advisor (Peter Mitchell) who informs me that although there was no further
investigation into his suspicion he did have cause for concern over the validity of the declared robbery
in so much that
1. .the safe door was open
2.. the sub-postmasters wife (now a confessed thief) let the offenders in through the back door
3. the CCTV had been disabled
As such it is (! believe) reasonable to (a) Restrain and (b) Request that the Fraud Advisor (Mike
Wilcox) be asked to re-interview the suspect in respect of the robbery loss also.
POL00061322
POL00061322
Fy
POL00061322
POL00061322
Regards
Ged _ ~
secreted Financial investigation Manager - takiag the cask out of crime’ [ AVN ar ,
@
Csaos souk NN ror Acie. w ol dos .
, \ eno
Aad woods cola Q cq Ne Wor
ok Weary,