POL00093755
POL00093755
b I
Witness Statement
{CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a)
and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Statement of Manish PATEL
Age if under 18 Over 18 (If over 18 insert ‘over 18')
This statement (consisting of fifty five (55) pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge
and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have
wilfully stated in it anything, which I know to be false or do not believe true.
Datedthe 25" dayof February 2004
Signature — M Patel
I am employed as an Investigation Team Manager for Post Office Ltd (POL) and have
been so employed since June 1990. I am responsible for the detection and
investigation of criminal activity committed by employees against the Post Office. I also
liase and assist other law enforcement bodies with investigations where Post Office Ltd
may be the target of fraud.
In early December 2002, I was asked by the Money Laundering section within Post
Office Ltd to contact H.M. Customs & Excise in London as their enquiries involved a
Post Office outlet in Rugeley Staffordshire, which came under my geographical area of
responsibility.
Upon speaking to H.M Customs & Excise in London, ! was made aware of the fact that
they had an enquiry ongoing into possible money laundering by an individual called
i and that large value cheques, usually over £50,000 each, in the
company name of RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd and made payable to Post Office Ltd
were being accepted at Rugeley Post Office. H.M Customs & Excise were concerned
that such large value cheques were being accepted at Rugeley Post Office and that
they had not been informed about these through the normal channels under the Money
Laundering disclosure procedure.
Signature I G RO ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
S011 (SideA) Version 3.0 1102
cS)
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
I was able to establish that large amounts of foreign currency, mainly Euros were being
sold on a weekly basis from Rugeley Post Office and that our own Money Laundering
section had not been notified by anyone at Rugeley Post Office of these large
transactions as should be the case. This information was imparted to H.M Customs &
Excise.
In Early January 2003, H.M Customs & Excise contacted me again and made me
aware of an HSBC bank cheque that they had in their possession to the value of
£112,765.96, it was drawn on the account of RPX Recycled Plastics and was dated 11""
November 2002, made payable to Post Office Ltd and had been accepted at Rugeley
Post Office for payment of Euros. I therefore initiated enquiries to try and establish the
exchange rate used by Rugeley Post Office for that one transaction on 11" November
2003.
On the afternoon of Monday 13” January 2003, before I had received the information
regarding the exchange rate used on the 11" November 2002, I received a call from
our internal Money Laundering section requesting that I urgently contact H.M Customs
& Excise.
Upon contacting H.M Customs & Excise, I was made aware that earlier that morning,
H.M Customs & Excise officers had made observations on I
_GRO I
arrested.
ind Rugeley Post Office and that as a result of their observations they had
t the time of arrest, I”
him a large holdall containing a very large amount of euros in cash and a receipt from
Rugeley Post Office indicating that 584,000 euros had been purchased for a sterling
value of £360,493.83 at an exchange rate of 1.62. I was informed that at the time of
“Iwas about to enter the premises of the Holiday Hypermarket in
Signature i G RO ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSO11A, Version 3.0 11102
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
I was soon able to establish that the exchange rate which should have been applied to
the sale of euros that day (13.01.03) by all Post Office outlets was 1.4583 and that ifa
single transaction was for £5,000 worth of Sterling: or more, a preferential exchange
rate of 1.4752 could have been applied. Therefore it appeared that Rugeley Post
Office had sold euros
¢ §84,000 Euros bought at 1.62 exchange rate = £360,493.83 sterling paid
e 584,000 Euros at the correct exchange rate of 1.4752 = £395,878.52 sterling
should have been paid.
e Therefore the transaction was underpaid by £35,384.69.
! then spoke to Mr Philip Hunt, H.M Customs & Excise officer and also Detective
Inspector Mark Abbotts of the Staffordshire Major Crime Unit. I was informed that the
investigation had now been handed over to DI Abbots team by Customs & Excise to
pursue what now appeared to be Theft from the Post Office as opposed to Money
Laundering as first believed by H.M Customs & Excise.
I then contacted one of my team, Mandy Bushell and requested that she meet up with
Officers from Staffordshire Major Crime unit (MCU) with the view to arrest the
Postmaster of Rugeley Post Office, a gentleman called Carl Adrian Page.
I also requested another one of my team members, Mr Colin Price to make
arrangements with the Post Office Audit section to have Rugeley Post Office audited on
Tuesday 14" January 2003.
Signature 'G RO Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSOnIA Version 3.0 11/02
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL,
I then made my way to Staffordshire Police HQ and met up with my colleague Mrs
Bushell and other officers from the Major Crime Unit. 1 was made aware at this point
that Mr Page the Postmaster had left the Post Office earlier that afternoon and had not
returned to the office, I was also made aware that a person called [
Horton, a driver, had also been arrested by Customs & Excise at the time of
It was agreed that Mr Page's whereabouts should be ascertained and the Police
officers commenced this process, it was also agreed that Rugeley Post: Office should
be searched and therefore the Major Crime Unit obtained a search warrant.
Later that evening at approximately 20:50 hours together with Mrs Bushell and a
number of Police Officers, I attended the premises of Rugeley Post Office, 18 Anson
Street Rugeley. In order to gain access to the premises, the Police had arranged for
one of the Post Office staff, Mrs Margaret Pearce to attend with the office keys. Shortly
after our arrival at the Post Office, a lady who I now know to be Mrs Margaret Pearce
arrived and I heard the Police officers explain to her what their intentions were. Mrs
Pearce then unlocked the premises and disabled the alarms before we all went inside.
A search of the secure area of the Post Office was then conducted by the Police
Officers though Mrs Bushell and I advised on the type of documentation, which should
be seized. All three safes in the Post Office were also opened including the safe
containing the Bureau till which was removed from it's insert. On examination of this till
it was noticed that there were five (5) HSBC bank cheques contained within this till,
these were seized by the Police and are now exhibited as item number NUW/5. A
closer examination of these cheques showed that all were drawn from the same
Signature G RO i Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO11A beeen Version 3.0 11/02
©
POL00093755
_PoL.00098755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
. Cheque No. 100148, dated 02.01.03 for an amount of £278,181.82
. Cheque No. 100159, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00
. Cheque No. 1400160, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00
Cheque No. 100161, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00.
Cheque No. 100162, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £60,493.83
opens
The four (4) cheques dated 13" January 2003, in total amount to a sterling value of
£360,493.83, which matched the value of the Post Office Bureau de Change receipt
(Exhibit HUNT A), found o1
at the time of arrest earlier that morning.
Further documentation in relation to the Bureau de Change transactions including all
the Forde Moneychanger till rolls that could be found (items NJW/1 & NJW/2) were also
seized by the Police.
The search concluded at approximately 2130 hours and the safes were time over
locked until 08:00 hours the following morning, the office was made secure before all
present left. During the course of the search, I was made aware by one of the Police
Officers that Mr Carl Page, the Postmaster had contacted the Police by telephone and
was due to attend the Police station later that evening.
On the following morning, Tuesday 14" January 2003, together with Mrs Bushell, I
attended Rugeley Post Office and met up with four (4) members of the audit team, we
were also met by Mrs Margaret Pearce and two other staff members. All present then
went into the Post Office, which remained shut to the public for the whole of that day.
The audit team then commenced a full audit of the Post Office. I later met Mr Mark
Irvin the Retail Line Manager responsible for Rugeley Post Office who also attended the
office and explained the situation to him, though I had appraised him briefly the
previous day.
Signature ! Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csonA Version 3,0 11102
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
Later that morning, I attended Staffordshire Police HQ and discussed the next course of
action. It was agreed that the Post Office Investigation section would lead this enquiry
and conduct any prosecution, the Police would assist with enquires mainly by providing
use of their Financial Investigation team. I was also made aware at this time that a
short interview had been conducted with Mr Carl Page, the Postmaster, on the previous
evening and that he had denied any wrongdoings though had admitted providin:
GRO
‘own “discretion in order to bring business into the Post Office claiming that ‘middle
ith preferential exchange rates, which he (Mr Page) had set using his
management’ in the Post office were aware of this practice.
I was also informed that!
GRO
I later returned to Rugeley Post Office and after having a discussion with Mr Mark Irvin,
I contacted the Custody Suite at Stafford Police station and spoke to Mr Carl Adrian
Page. I informed Mr Page that on the authority of Mr Mark Irvin, I was precautionary
suspending his contract for services pending a full investigation. Mr Irvin then briefly
spoke to.Mr Page. I later asked Mr Irvin if he was aware of Mr Page providing
preferential exchange rates to any customers to which he replied “no”, I also spoke by
telephone to the previous Retail Line Manager for this Post office, Mr James Coney and
asked him if he was aware that Mr Page provided preferential exchange rates to any
customer, again Mr Coney also denied that he knew of such a practice. Subsequently
statements were taken from two of the staff members, Mrs Margaret Ann Pearce and
Ms Shirley Jayn Batey.
On conclusion of the audit, I was informed that the overall shortage was £645,345.18
this was made up of the five missing cheques (seized by the Police), which equated to
Signature Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSo11A, Version 3.0 11/02
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
£642,258.79 and a further shortage of £3,086.39 relating mainly to postage provided to
business customers who had yet to settle their account.
Later that day, Mrs Bushell and I attended Stafford Police station and met with DC
Chris Andrews and DC Lisa Deans. I was informed tha’
ihad been
bailed without further interview je was due to return to
e driver had also been
It was agreed that a further interview of Mr Page should be conducted and that I should
form part of the interviewing team in order to cover the internal procedures of the Post
office.
At 17:17 hours on Tuesday 14" January 2003, I was present at Stafford Police station
when a tape recorded interview in accordance with P.A.C.E was conducted by DC
Andrews with Mr Carl Adrian Page, also in attendance was Mr Page's solicitor, Mr Nigel
Pepper. The interview concluded at 18:46 and two (2) tape cassettes were used, tape
numbers 21/CG/109/03/2 and 21/CG/109/03/3 refers. Subsequently I prepared
transcripts of these two tapes, which I now produce as item numbers MP/84 & MP/85.
Mr Page was informed that there was a vast amount of documentation to examine and
that he would be required to attend a further interview at a later date, Mr Page also
signed authorities for the Police to investigate his bank accounts and credit card
accounts.
Following the interview, Mr Page was released on bail to return to Stafford Police
station on 4" March 2003.
Signature : G RO : Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSontA Version 3,0 11/02
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss SA(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
On Wednesday 15" January 2003, after having taken advice from the Post Office Legal
department in Croydon, it was agreed that of the five (5) HSBC bank cheques seized by
the Police from Rugeley Post Office (item number NJW/5), four (4) ‘of these related to
the one transaction conducted on the morning of Monday 43° January 2003 and as the
euros for this transaction had been seized and where currently being held by Customs
& Excise, then these cheques should not be presented to the bank for clearance,
however the fifth cheque for an amount of £278,181.82 and dated and January 2003
and which Mr Page during interview had stated was in lieu of three (3) cheques which
‘bounced’ during Christmas 2002, should be presented to the Bank for clearance as the
, Asa result I
requested Mrs Bushell to make arrangements to present the above-mentioned cheque
to a bank for express clearance and also to recover all of the exhibits taken from the
Post Office during the search from the Police in Staffordshire.
Later that afternoon, I was made aware by Mrs Bushell that she had been contacted by
a lady in the accounts section of the Post Office in Chesterfield who was in possession
of three (3) very large value cheques accepted at Rugeley Post Office during Christmas
2002 for Bureau Transactions and all three had “ Payment Stopped”. Mrs Bushell
informed me that she had provided my details to this lady and asked her to contact me
directly.
Later that afternoon, I spoke to the lady who had earlier spoken with my colleague,
Mandy Bushell. Mrs Elaine Lievesley informed me that she had copies of three (3)
cheques which had all been accepted at Rugeley Post Office over the Christmas 2002
period for Foreign currency transactions, all three cheques were drawn from the same
account of RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd for the amounts of £100,000.00, £ 87,272.73 and
£90,909.09 and dated 20.12.02, 20.12.02 and 23.12.02 respectively. Copies of these
three cheques were then faxed to my office in St Albans. Mrs Lievesley also informed
Signature I G RO i Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSONA berm Version 3.0 11102
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
me that she had been made aware by the Co-op Bank that two (2) further large value
cheques totalling £184,332.18 were also being returned to the Post Office as payment
had been stopped.
The first 3 cheques mentioned above in total equate to £278,181.82, which matches
identically in value to the fifth cheque, cheque number 100148 (item NJW/5) seized by
the Police from the Post Office, this cheque’s value being £278,181.82.
@ As the value of stopped cheques was now substantial, five (5) cheques totalling
£462,514.00 and therefore ultimately a potential loss to the Post Office, I sought advice
from the Post Office Commercial Litigation section with regards to freezing bank
accounts and assets of those concerned.
Later that day I requested one of my colleagues, Mr Michael Cooksey to recover the
exhibits held by Mr Mark Irvin and to meet me the following morning to hand them over
tome.
On the morning of Thursday 16" January 2003, I meet with Mr Michael Cooksey and
took possession of all the exhibits NJW/ to NJW/8, which had been seized, from the
@ Post Office. 1 then took these exhibits to the Offices of Mrs Biddy Wyles, Senior
Lawyer, Post Office Commercial Litigation section. Subsequently I liased with
Commercial Litigation over a number of days until Monday 20" January 21 hi
High Court granted freezing orders for RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd
Later in the day on 16 January 2003, the accounts section in Chesterfield advised me
that payment had been stopped on a further cheque for an amount of £278,181.82.
This cheque was in fact part of exhibit NJW/5, the fifth cheque (No. 100148) that I had
Signature i G RO : Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSonA Version 3.0 11102
‘ ce)
Po
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss SA(3)(o) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
made arrangements to present to the Co-op bank on Wednesday 45 January 2003 for
express clearance.
Subsequently I received five (6) HSBC Bank Cheques from the accounts section in
Chesterfield, the three (3) totalling £ 278,181.82 and two (2) further cheques totalling
£184,332.18, all five (5) cheques bore the word “Payment Stopped” on the front and
produce these Cheques as Item numbers MP/1 and MP/2 respectively.
In total the Post Office was now in possession of ten (10) HSBC bank cheques, all
drawn on the RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd bank account number f these ten
(10) cheques, six (6) of them had ‘bounced’ or had payment stopped, the remaining
four (4) which related to the transaction of Monday 13" January 2003 had not been
presented to the bank for clearance as the cash equivalent were the euros being held
by Customs & Excise. In total the value of all ten (10) cheques amounted to
£1,101,189.60, of the six (6) where payment had been stopped the amount stood at
£740,695.82.
I have listed the details of each cheque below:-
Cheque No. 100140, dated 20.12.02 for an amount of £100,000.00 (MP/1)
Cheque No. 100142, dated 20.12.02 for an amount of £87,272.73 (MP/1)
Cheque No. 100144, dated 23.12.02 for an amount of £90,909.09 (MP/1)
Cheque No. 100148, dated 02.01.03 for an amount of £278,181.82 (NJW/5)
Cheque No. 100156, dated 07.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00 (MP/2)
Cheque No. 100157, dated 07.01.03 for an amount of £84,332.18 (MP/2)
. Cheque No. 100159, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00 (NJW/5)
. Cheque No. 100160, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00 (NJW/5)
ONOAAARYON SD
Signature : G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csonA Lecce i Version 3.0 11/02
10
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 54(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
9. Cheque No. 100161, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £100,000.00 (NJW/5)
10. Cheque No. 100162, dated 13.01.03 for an amount of £60,493.83 (NJW/5)
Subsequently over the next few weeks and months, I liased with both H.M. Customs &
Excise, the Major Crime unit and the Financial Investigation team of Staffordshire
Constabulary and various sections within the Post Office organisation in order to further
this investigation. Large amounts of documentation was received from the various
sections and analysed, certain information being incorporated into various schedules
compiled by me to illustrate various findings.
One of the main parts of the analysis centred around the examination of the Forde
Moneychanger till rolls, items NJW/1 & NJW/2, which had been recovered from
Rugeley Post Office during the Police search on Monday 13" January 2003.
There were a large number of till rolls recovered and an examination revealed till rolls
relevant to periods in 2001, 2002 and up until 13" January 2003. Of the till rolls
relevant to the year 2001, the dates ranged from 18" January 2001 to 30” August
2001, covering roughly an eight month period, however this did not cover a continuous
8 month period as a quantity of till rolls were missing, in total some 4 months of the 8
month period was missing due to the lack of till rolls. For the purposes of this
investigation none of the till rolls relating to 2001 have been examined, they now form
part of the unused material.
The investigation has been concentrated to cover the period of 2002 and early 2003, of
the till rolls which were recovered for this period they covered the period from 7" March
2002 to 13" January 2003, week number 46 to week number 42 of the following
financial year, however even this period is not continuous as there are several till rolls
missing which cover a period of 27 working days. I have listed below the till rolls which
Signature: GRO : Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cso11A od Version 3.0 11/02
ab
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
_ (CJ Act 1967, 39; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)() and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
Till rolls missing
01.03.02 to 06.03.02
16.03.02 to 18.03.02
06.05.02
19.05.02 to 21.05.02
24.07.02 to 31.07.02
03.09.02 to 08.09.02
12.09.02 to 15.09.02
15.11.02 to 47.11.02
Each of the till rolls have now been examined to look for a number of areas as shown
below:-
1.
Every large transaction involving the purchase of Euros has been identified and
a photocopy of that portion of the till roll taken, I produce these photocopies as
item number MP/3A. The process of.identifying those transactions conducted by
csonA
Signature I G RO ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
I was quite straightforward as the monetary values concerned
were so large. The information from these transactions has been incorporated
onto a schedule covering the period from 09.03.02 to 13.01.03, I now produce
this updated schedule as item number MP/3. I should add that whilst going
through all of the transactions again on the Forde Moneychanger till rolls, I
discovered that the entry for 31.08.02 originally had been shown on schedule
MP/3 as 115,000 euros purchased with a sterling value of £69,696.97. This was
not correct and the actual amount purchased that day was in fact 155,000 euros
Version 3.0 11/02
12
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL.
with a sterling value of £93,939.39 and hence the Grand total figures have
changed since the interview with Mr Page on 23% April 2003. All previous copies
; of schedule MP/3 are now part of the unused material.
2. Every transaction where Rugeley Post Office had bought back (buy back) 1000
euros or more from a customer was also identified and similarly a photocopy of
that section of the till roll taken, I produce these photocopies as item number
MP/SA. In certain cases where a transaction of less than 1000 euros occurred
I e immediately after a transaction for over 1000 euros, this transaction was also
I included. The information from these transactions has been incorporated onto a
schedule, which I now produce as item number MP/5.
3. Forde Moneychanger till roll Command 10 weekly summaries covering weeks 19
to 22 (01.08.02 to 28.08.02) and weeks 24 to 41 (05.09.02 to 13.01.03). Again
the section of till roll relevant to the above weeks was photocopied and I produce
those copies as item number MP/81.
4. All currency transfers into the Forde Moneychanger between weeks 33 to 42,
(wie 13.11.02 to w/e 15.01.03), again the section of till roll relevant to the above
© weeks was photocopied and I produce those copies as item number MP/83. The
information from these transfers has been incorporated onto a schedule, which I
now produce as item number MP/82.
Schedule MP/3 lists every transaction for the purchase of Euros conducted by: H
vat Rugeley Post Office between 09.03.02 to 13.01.03, the day he was
arrested. There will be some transactions missing from this schedule which correspond
to the days on which Mr Whitehouse purchased Euros from Rugeley Post Office but the
till rolls from the Post Office are missing, the missing dates have been identified above.
Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSONA a I Version 3.0 11/02
.
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
For every transaction that has been found on the till roll, I have entered the details onto
the schedule. The schedule indicates the date of the transaction, the cash account
week number which it falls in, the time of transaction as shown on the till roll, the
amount in volume of euros purchased, the exchange rate applied to that transaction
and the Sterling amount paid by: to the Post Office. There are then four
further columns, the first shows an exchange rate which should have been applied on
the day in question for all transactions of less than £5000 in value. This is the
published rate, which is stipulated by First Rate Travel Services (FRTS), and is the
exchange rate, which would appear on the daily fax, sent to each Bureau de Change on
Demand Post Office outlet.
The second column shows an exchange rate, which would be applicable to any
transaction of £5000 or greater in value. This exchange rate would have to be obtained
by the relevant Post Office outlet by contacting FRTS directly via telephone.
column shows the sterling value, which should have been paid by (Gro!
to the Post Office if the correct exchange rate stipulated, by FRTS ha
been applied by Rugeley Post Office. In every case apart from the 5" transaction on 7"
June 2002 at 17:05 hours the exchange rate applied is the over 5K rate as the
transactions are all above £5000 in sterling and a preferential rate could have been
obtained by contacting FRTS who would have then provided the rates as shown on the
schedule. As can be seen the 5" transaction on the 7" June 2002 was for an amount
of 4000 euros (under £5000 in value) so the normal published rate has been used for
this transaction. :
The fourth column then shows the difference between what
paid to the Post Office and what he should have paid using the correct exchange rates,
the underpayment.
Signature : G RO Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cso1a Version 3.0 11/02
:
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
exchange rate that should have been applied (over 5K rate) was 1.5781.
paid £25,346.94 for those 40,000 euros. This meant that
13" January 2003 recorded on schedule MP/3 and over the 10 month perio:
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
It became apparent from the time of the observations carried out by H.M. Customs &
Excise officers on Monday 13” January 2003 of ia ; that he was seen
outside Rugeley Post Office at 07:47 hours though his vehicle (silver BMW) was parked
outside the Post Office at 07:18 hours. Upon’
Forde Moneychanger receipt was found on his person, which was dated 13th January
2003, and the time indicated as 08:38 hours. Having been to the Post Office later that
evening and the following day, I have confirmed that the internal clock built into the
larrest, a Post Office
Forde Moneychanger had not been altered in the autumn of 2002 when British Summer
Times (BST) ends and the clocks are put back by one (1) hour, hence all of the Forde
Moneychanger till receipts after this period would show a time 1 hour ahead of the
correct time. This would explain why the receipt found o: showed a
time of 08:38 hours when observations had shown that
Post Office by 07:47 hours.
For illustration if we take the first transaction on the schedule, this occurred on 9"
March 2002, which falls into the Post Offices cash account week number 51. The
transaction was conducted at 07:57 hours and purchased forty
thousand (40,000) euros. The exchange rate, which was applied, was 1.715; the
therefore actually paid the Post Office £23,323.62 when he should have
under paid
the Post Office £2,023.32 in just that one transaction.
In total there are one hundred and ten (110) transactions excluding the transaction of
purchased 11,172,450 euros for which he paid £ 6,725,339.50 to the Post
Office, however if the correct exchange rates had been applied,
Signature I G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO11A I . Version 3.0 11/02
. @®
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
have paid’£ 7,318,142.20 and therefore he has underpaid the Post Office £592,802.74.-
Schedule MP/5 illustrates all of the transactions where Rugeley Post Office has bought
back euros from customers in excess of 1000 notes at a time. The Post Office does
offer a commission free ‘Buy Back’ service for foreign currency aimed at holidaymakers
who have gone abroad with an amount of foreign currency and not spent all of it on
holiday and have therefore returned to the united Kingdom with an amount of currency,
which they would like to convert back to sterling. It would be reasonable to expect that
these amounts being brought back to the UK would be relatively small amounts and
therefore I set a level of 1000 euros or above as my criterion in order to compile the
schedule. It would be expected that a normal holiday maker is unlikely to bring back
more than 1000 euros to the UK hence I wished to examine what level of these
transactions were being conducted at Rugeley Post Office. It can be seen from this
schedule that the first such buy back occurs on 28.03.02 and the last recorded
transaction occurs on 04.01.03 and that in total 90,830 euros were bought back by
Rugeley Post Office giving a Sterling equivalent of £58,507.64. In the last column of
this schedule I have added a Remarks column where I have recorded certain
information mainly to do with when a transaction for the sale of Euros was conducted
land its timeliness with a buy back.
Exhibit item number MP/81 is a number of photocopies of the relevant section of till roll
relating to the weekly Forde Moneychanger Command 10 summary printout. The
periods produced cover weeks 19 to 22 (01.08.02 to 28.08.02) and weeks 24 to 41
(05.09.02 to 13.01.03). Week number 23 (w/e 04.09.02) is missing as it is falls into the
period of missing till rolls, however the Chesterfield copy of it is available in exhibit item
number MEP/01.
A Command 10 weekly summary is a printout requested from the Forde Moneychanger
Signature i G RO ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO1tA Version 3,0 11102
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss SA(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
at the end of the cash account week (Wednesday evening) that will provide the user
with a full summary of what has been occurring within the Bureau de Change till that
week. It will show a list of the currencies sold (SN) and bought (BN) that week, the total
amount of sales and also the sterling value of cash held in the till. Armed with this
printout it would be a simple matter of checking the amount of each currency physically
held in the Bureau Till or elsewhere if currency is held in the main safe or anywhere
else, against what the Command 10 summary says you should have on hand. The
same would also apply to the sterling amount held in the Bureau till. If all of the
amounts agree then the Bureau till is said to have ‘Balanced’ a term used frequently in
the Post Office to signify a correct account which is neither short or over.
The Command 10 summary also indicates the revaluation figure for that week and a
commission figure. Exhibit MP/81 are photocopies taken from the under copy of the
Forde Moneychanger till roll, the top copy Command 10 summary must to despatched
weekly to the Post Office accounting section in Chesterfield together with an attached
P4833 form, the Commission and Revaluation Summary form, which shows. the
commission and revaluation figures which have been copied from the Command 10
summary.
Furthermore the figures in relation to the Sterling value of cash held in the Bureau Till
as shown on the command 10 summary together with the revaluation and commission
figure must be physically entered into the Horizon computer terminal by an operator.
These figures are required to be fed into the Horizon system in order to take into
account the transactions conducted by the Forde Moneychanger, which is a ‘stand
alone machine’ and not directly connected to the Horizon system. In order to carry out
the full weekly Office ‘Balance’ the figures from the Command 10 summary are required
to be fed into the Horizon computer system which can then perform the weekly office
balance and produce the weekly cash account.
Signature witnessed by M Bushell
Version 3.0 11102
. GZ
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement .
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
When the weekly cash account is printed off, the three figures discussed will also
appear on the account. The Foreign Currency Sterling equivalent figure will appear on
Page 2 of the cash account in table 5 labelled ‘Cash, Stock etc in Hand’ at line 52. The
Bureau de Change commission figure and Revaluation figure will appear on page 3 of
the cash account in the Receipts table at lines 86 and 70 respectively.
Exhibit item number MP/83 consist of several copies of the portion of Forde
Moneychanger till roll relating to the transfer of currency into the office between weeks
33 to 42 (13.11.02 to 13.01.03). The information contained on these portions of the till
rolls has been summarised on schedule MP/82, which I now produce. When the Post
Office outlet receives Foreign Currency from the Stock Centre in Hemel Hempstead, it
does so via a special delivery pouch conveyed by secure transport. As the insurance
limit per pouch is limited to £2,500, each pouch will only contain a maximum of up to
£2,500 in foreign currency, therefore if an office orders a large volume of currency, say
for instance £25,000 worth, the office would receive ten (10) pouches each containing
up to £2,500 of foreign currency.
Upon receipt of the currency at the Post Office outlet, a delivery advice note will have
been enclosed in the pouch which will provide a breakdown of each type of currency
enclosed (an example is item number LGH/02), the volume of currency and it's sterling
value based on the exchange rate shown on the advice note. The recipient is then
required to input the volume and exchange rate of each currency into the Forde
Moneychanger. By performing this task the operator is effectively ‘topping up’ the
Bureau de Change till and telling the Forde Moneychanger by how much and of what
currency you are topping it up with. The Forde Moneychanger knows what currency
and the value of that currency it had before (Command 10 summary) and therefore by
transferring more currency into it, the Forde Moneychanger is aware of how much
Signature Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csonA Version 3,0 11/02
. Gy
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
additional currency has beén added and therefore the total volume and value of
currency held in the office whether that be physically in the Bureau till itself or partly in
the Bureau till and the Main safe or anywhere else used to house the bulk currency.
As sales of currency and buy backs are performed throughout the week, the Forde
Moneychanger is used to perform these transactions and therefore it keeps a running
tally of what has been sold and what has been bought, which ultimately allows the
operator at the end of the cash account week to request the Command 10 summary at
which time the Forde Moneychanger will have worked-out what you started with, what
was sold and bought throughout the week and what was transferred in from the stock
centre and tell you what you should have left in way of both volume of currency and
sterling value.
It can be seen from schedule MP/82 that throughout the weeks in question, almost on a
daily basis, large volumes of euros are transferred into the Forde Moneychanger. If the
figures from this schedule are compared to the schedule supplied by Mr Hutchins,
LGH/04 it can be seen that the sterling values virtually match those for the relevant
periods, the slight differences being that schedule LGH/04 shows the sterling value of
the entire order which in some cases includes other currencies as well as Euros and
MP/82 only takes into account the sterling value of the euros transferred in.
In the last week on the schedule, week number 42, it can be seen that on the 9", 10"
and 11" of January 2003, 150,000 euros each day is transferred into the Forde
Moneychanger and as can be seen from schedule MP/3, Mr Whitehouse purchased
584,000 euros from Rugeley Post Office on the Morning of Monday 13" January 2003.
During the early part of this investigation, I was provided with a schedule compiled by
Customs & Excise, which showed details of transactions from various Thomas Cook
"GRO
cso11A, i i Version 3,0 11/02
° GS
Signature witnessed by M Bushell
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
»
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
Bureau de Change outlets in the Midlands area where! GRO his associates
had sold large quantities of euros and converted the euros back into Sterling. The
proceeds from these sales were in the majority of cases electronically transferred by
Thomas Cook Retail Limited to I” ccounts, either his personal account
or that of the Company, RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd.
This schedule commences from 16.01.02 to 04.01.03 and was used by me to carry out
further examination of documentation and the production of further schedules to
illustrate various findings.- In due course I prepared my own version of this schedule,
which I now produce at item number MP/80. The information provided by Mrs Pippa
Barker, Thomas Cook Retail Limited Anti Money Laundering Compliance Officer in her
two statements and the related evidence allowed me to compile the new up to date
schedule. I was also able to include information from two further Bureau de Change
outlets, First Choice Retail and MY Travel Financial Services who had both conducted
transactions with” jon 7 January 2003; this information was gained via
DC Andrew Wood of the Financial Investigation Unit attached to Staffordshire Police
Headquarters.
The new schedule, item number MP/80 detailed all transactions from 16.01.02 to
07.01.03 which showed that GRO _ or those acting on his behalf sold just over
14 million euros (14,042,405.00) to a number of Bureau de Change outlets, mainly to
the chain of Thomas Cook Retail outlets in and around the Birmingham area over that
time period and that this equated to a little over 8% million pounds sterling
(£8,598,889.69). The original schedule provided to me by H.M Customs & Excise now
forms part of the unused material.
Using the information contained on schedule MP/3 (Transactions extracted from Forde
Moneychanger till rolls for Rugeley Post Office) and information from schedule MP/80
Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csonA Version 3,0 11/02
°
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
‘Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
(Schedule of euros sold
to Bureau de Change outlets) and also
information gained from microfilm copies of the bank cheques used by,
to pay for the euros he purchased from Rugeley Post Office, I was able to prepare
another schedule known as the Euros Purchase and Deposit schedule which I now
produce as item number MP/4.
There are three main elements to this schedule, the first shows the details regarding
the purchase by! Jof euros from Rugeley Post Office and this section
- I shows the date and day of purchase together with the total volume of euros bought by
. I The second section shows details of the cheque used by iG
__ito purchase the euros from the Post Office.
As mentioned previously, I arranged for microfilm copies of all cheques accepted at
Rugeley Post Office over a 2-year period in the name of RPX Recycled Plastics Ltd or
- ito be forwarded to me from our accounting section in Chesterfield.
Having examined these copy cheques, which unfortunately are of a fairly poor quality, I
was able to extract those relating to the transactions shown on schedule MP/3, covering
the period of 09.03.02 through to 13.01.03.
The copy cheques together with the relevant copy Batch Control Voucher (BCV) are
part of exhibit SB/01; further copies of cheques prior to 09.03.02 are now part of the
unused material. 1 must also point out that not all of the cheques in relation to the
transactions shown on schedule MP/80 have been located, this has been noted in the
remarks column.
The cheque detail section of schedule MP/80 shows the date written on the cheque
itself, the amount shown on the cheque and in some instances the cheque number and
the date, which appears on the BCV.
Signature ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSOnA Version 3,0 11/02
° oD
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, $9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
When the Post Office despatches cheques, which have been accepted over the
counter as payment for transactions or indeed deposits into bank accounts, these
cheques must be despatched by the office on a daily basis so that bill payments are
met and funds credited to customers accounts.
The normal process used by Post Offices is to set a time every day called the ‘Cut off’
time when a member of staff or the manager will collate and despatch various
documentation which needs to be accounted for daily such as the cheques taken over
the counter. Each serving position in the Post Office will more than likely have taken
several cheques in lieu of payment from the general public over the course of the day,
at the ‘Cut off’ time which is normally somewhere between 1630 hours and 1700 hours
each day, apart from Wednesday, each counter position will hand over the number of
cheques they have taken that day together with a printout showing the total number and
value of the cheques. These are then collated by one individual who amalgamates all
of the cheques together and obtains a total figure in relation to quantity and value.
These two figures are then entered onto the Batch Control Voucher (BCV) together with
the office FAD code, the date of despatch and a datestamp impression before it and all
the associated cheques are placed into a special envelope called a ‘Cheque envelope’
which is just slightly smaller than an A4 envelope and is coloured in distinctive red and
white stripes. This envelope together with other special envelopes containing other
products which are accounted for daily are then handed to the Royal Mail postman
when he/she arrives at the office to collect all of the other mail, hence the reason to
have a ‘Cut off time as if it was left until the office closed at 1730 hours, it would take
10 or 15 minutes to then amalgamate the cheques and other daily work which would
mean the postman would be delayed, therefore all of the daily accounting work is
prepared a short time before the postman arrives so that when the office closes at
Signature i G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSo1A Version 3.0 11/02
i
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss SA(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
17:30 hours, the postmen merely have to empty the post box and be on their way.
Any cheques taken for transactions after the ‘Cut off time would be held in the Post
office until the following day when the process would start all over again. As stated
before all cheques must be despatched daily regardless of which type of transaction it
has been accepted for, this includes Bureau de Change transactions.
I mentioned earlier that the cheques are to be despatched daily apart from Wednesday,
this is because Wednesday evening is the Post Office’s ‘Balancing’ day. Every
Wednesday evening after the Post Office closes for business to the public the accounts
for that week must to brought to account and a ‘balance’ performed, which is basically a
verification of transactions and sales performed that week together with a verification of
the money accepted at the counter. In order to perform this task the Horizon computer
system is used which can provide you with breakdowns of various types of transactions
etc, it also provides you with a breakdown of what stock and cash the office should hold
at the end of business on Wednesday evening and then it is a process of physically
checking the amount of stock and cash held in the office and comparing it with what the
Horizon computer system says you should have.
All of the information relating to the weekly office balance is transferred automatically by.
the Horizon computer system onto a weekly cash account document, which is then
printed off. The cash account document shows a summary of all of the transactions
conducted that week, the amount of stock and cash on hand and a host of other
accounting figures. These accounting figures basically fall into two categories, either
Receipts or Payment, for instance if a customer had paid in an amount of money into
their Girobank account, this would be classed as a receipt and would form part of the
total value recorded in the receipts section of the cash account.
Signature Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSONA Version 3.0 11/02
° GD
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
{CJ Act 1967, 39; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
If the Post office paid out a pension to a customer then this would be classed as a
payment and would form part of the total value recorded in the payments section of the
cash account. By comparing the total figure obtained in the Receipts sections with that
obtained in the payments section we are able to determine if a ‘Balance’ has been
reached. If the two figures are identical than the office is said to have ‘Balanced’
exactly, if however the figure obtained for receipts is higher than that obtained for
payments then the account has not balanced and a surplus is recorded on the cash
account on page 1 under the discrepancies table and similarly if the receipts figure is
lower than the payments figure than a shortage must be declared on the cash account.
Upon competition of the cash account, two cash account documents are printed off,
‘both should be signed by the Postmaster or office manager to signify that they are a
true and accurate record of the office accounts, they should also be datestamped and
then one copy is retained at the office and the other is forwarded to the accounts
sections in Chesterfield where it is archived for a period of time.
As the Post Office performs the office balance on Wednesday evening after close of
business, there is not a ‘Cut off time on Wednesday's and therefore any cheques taken
on Wednesday right up to the point of when the office closes would be included in the
office balance. As the office balance is performed after closing no documentation is
despatched that night including the cheque envelope, it is normal for the Post Office
outlets to retain the cheque envelope and other daily accounting documentation until
the following morning (Thursday) when they would be collected by the postman on the
morning collection. Wednesday's are the only time when it is appropriate not to
despatch the cheques taken on that day and can be held over until the following
morning after the office has been balanced.
Hence the date, which appears on the BCV, should be the date when the cheques were
Signature Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csot1A Version 3.0 11/02
°
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
despatched and therefore I have used this date for the purposes of interpreting the
delay in submitting the Whitehouse cheques shown on schedule MP/4.
The third section of schedule MP/4 is in relation to the ‘deposits’,
imade
at the various other Bureau de Change outlets as detailed on schedule MP/80. This
section shows the date the deposit (selling of euros) occurred, the amount sold and any
difference in the quantity from what Mr Whitehouse purchased from the Post Office to
what he sold at the other Bureau de Change outlets and then any remarks I have
recorded. ‘
An examination of this schedule shows that in the majority of cases, L “GRO I
would purchase an amount of euros from Rugeley Post Office and later on the same
day, he would sell the same number or sometimes a lesser amount of euros to the
other Bureau de Change outlets. Indeed by examining the time recorded for the
purchase of euros from the Post Office as shown on schedule MP/3 to the various
exhibits produced by Pippa Barker of Thomas Cook Retail Limited, which also record
the time the euros were sold to their outlet, it can be seen that in a number of cases the
sale occurs within an hour or two of the purchase from Rugeley Post Office.
To illustrate, the first entry on schedule MP/4 shows that) _ipurchased
40,000 euros on Saturday 9" March 2002. The cheque used for ‘payment was dated
8" March 2002 (Friday) and made out for an amount of £23,323.62; this cheque was
associated with the BCV dated Wednesday 13" March 2002.
On the same day as the euros were purchased, Saturday 9" March 200!
GRO _ ‘sold (deposited) 40,000 euros to a Thomas Cook outlet who would have
then electronically credited his bank account for the sterling equivalent minus their fees.
So in that instance,” imerely purchased 40,000 euros from the Post
Signature I G RO Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cso11A Version 3.0 11/02
a “ED
25
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, 9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
Office for £23,323.62 and sold the same amount to Thomas cook later that day (11:47
hours as per exhibit PB/23). By looking at schedule MP/80 you can see that Thomas
~ jaccount by £24,222.42 (having taken a £20 fee) which
imade £898.80 from that one transaction by buying a
quantity of euros from Rugeley Post Office and taking them to Thomas Cook a couple
of hours later and selling them.
Furthermore the cheque accepted by Rugeley Post Office for this transaction on
Saturday 9" March 2002 from Mr Whitehouse was not despatched for processing until
Wednesday 13" March 2002, some 4 working days afterwards, though more likely
would have been despatched on Thursday morning (14!) as explained earlier.
An examination of the copy bank account statements obtained by DC Wood, item
number .JW/2 which is the private bank account in the name of
account number ishows that on Monday 11" March 2002 an electronic
transfer of £24,222.42 was credited to this account by Thomas Cook Retail Limited, the
first working day after the euros had been sold to Thomas Cook on Saturday 9" March
2002. However at the time that the money was credited to I laccount
the cheque for £23,323.62 was still being held at Rugeley Post Office, indeed a further
examination of the bank statements JW/2 shows that the cheque for £23,323.62 was
GRO _
working days later. —_
account until Monday 18" March 2002, some 8
not debited from
It can also be seen from schedule MP/3 that after the transaction on Saturday 9" March
2002 and before the associated cheque for £23,323.62 cleared on Monday 18" March
and 64,900 euros on Thursday 14" March 2002 for £33,333.33 and £37,994.32
respectively from Rugeley Post Office and sold the euros to Thomas Cook on the same
Signature I G RO Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO nnn Version 3.0 11/02
26 P)
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
day of purchase. Indeed the sterling equivalent from the sale of these two amounts
was electronically credited to! account on 12" March 2002 and 14"
March 2002 (the same day as the deposit) and all before the first cheque used on 9!”
March 2002 had even been despatched let alone debited.
Effectively this meant that over the 6 day period from 9" March 2002 to 14" March
2003," had physically walked away from Rugeley Post Office with euros
in cash worth £94,651.27 at the exchange rate he had been given by Rugeley Post
Office, though none of the three (3) bank cheques he had provided to the Post Office in «
lieu of payment had within that time been ‘banked’ or cleared, indeed they hadn’t even
left the Post Office premises until 14" March 2002. However in that same time period,
. _ihaving sold the euros he had purchased in those 3 days to Thomas
Cook Retail, received funds worth £95,769.54, which had been credited to his Bank
account, nothing had been debited from his account for the payment of those euros to
the Post Office.
Furthermore from schedule MP/3 it can be seen that had Rugeley Post Office applied
the correct exchange rate to the transaction on Saturday 9" March 2002 (1.5781) the
amount:
I should have paid to the Post Office would have been
£25,346.94, in this instance when! GRO,
Thomas Cook later that morning he was given an exchange tate of 1.65 and received
£24,222.42, which would have meant that rather than making a profit of £898.80, he
would have made a loss of £1,124.52.
old the same amount of euros to
Schedule MP/4 also illustrates that!
of euros to Thomas Cook Retail as he had bought from Rugeley Post Office, for
instance on Thursday 14" March 2002
Rugeley Post Office and later that day he sold 60,000 euros through Thomas Cook
idid not always sell the same amount
rchased 64,900 euros from
Signature I G RO Signature witnessed by M Bushell
S011 i Version 3.0 11102
[_ x
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
that the cheque for £278,181.82 was a replacement cheque given to him by’
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, $9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
Retail, a difference of 4,900 euros. On other oceasions,; _GRO- J sold more
euros than he had purchased that day from the Post Office.
There are a number of anomalies, which arise from the data contained in this schedule,
which I will address later in this statement.
At the time of the audit of Rugeley Post Office on Tuesday 14" January 2003, I was
made aware that included in the overall office shortage of £645,345.18 was a figure of
£282,000.00 which was the difference found by the auditors in the‘AM’ stock unit. The
‘AM' stock unit has since been confirmed by Mr Page himself to be his main stock unit.
At the time there was also a single cheque in the Bureau de Change till for an amount
of £278,181.82, part of exhibit NUW/5 and therefore this cheque and more importantly
the amount became associated with the £282,000.00 shortage in the AM stock unit.
However following questioning of Mr Page during the PACE interviews, Mr Page stated
‘early in 2003 to replace three (3) cheques whit
thad used
hristmas 2002 period at Rugeley Post office to purchase euros, exhibit MP/1,
which had all ‘bounced’. With that being the case the single cheque for £278,181.82
should not have formed any part of the office balance and should not have been taken
into account by the audit team, however, at that time, I nor anyone else was aware of
the explanation Mr Page would give in relation to this cheque. That single cheque
therefore was being held by Mr Page in the Bureau de Change till until the three (3)
‘bounced’ cheques (which came to exactly the same amount) were returned to the
office in the form of an error notice, a method used by the Post Office accounting
section to advise Post office outlets of any accounting errors which need to be rectified.
From what Mr Page has told me during interview, once he had received the error notice
Signature GRO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSo11A Version 3.0 11102
.
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
in relation to the three (3) bounced cheques he would have then submitted the single
cheque for £278,181.82 to rectify the error.
When I became aware of this explanation, I began to examine the Post Office
documentation more closely as this meant that the single cheque for £278,181.82
should not have formed any part of the accounts at Rugeley Post Office on Tuesday
14 January 2003 and therefore there was an unidentified loss of £282,000.00 in the
‘AM’ stock unit.
Examination of the audit result and specifically exhibits KO/01 and DAE/O5 show that
the £282,000.00 difference in the ‘AM’ stock unit was in relation to a figure recorded in
the AM stock unit for Foreign Currency. The ‘AM’ stock unit as agreed by Mr Page
during interview was the main Post Office safe (two safes) located in Mr Page's office
and would have contained various amounts of bulk cash and stock. When the auditor’s
examined these safes and verified their contents on 14" January 2003, they did not find
£282,000.00 worth of foreign currency located in the ‘AM’ stock unit, indeed there was
no foreign currency at all in the AM stock unit, the only foreign currency found at the
Post Office that day was all contained within the Bureau de Change till insert.
As the discrepancy in the AM stock unit related to foreign currency the auditors decided
to electronically transfer that shortage to the Bureau till (BU stock unit) using the
Horizon computer system, in order to keeps things neat, hence exhibit DAE/05
The Bureau till (BU stock unit) had already shown a shortage as the five (5) cheques,
exhibit NJW/5, had been seized from the till by the Police the day before. What wasn’t
known at the time is that the fifth cheque, the one for an amount of £278,181.82 had
not been entered into the Forde Moneychanger or the Horizon system and was merely
sitting in the bureau till awaiting the three bounced cheques and the error notice from
Signature i G R (@) : Signature witnessed by M Bushell
SONIA i H Version 3.0 11/02
am . ®
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
the Post Office accounting section in Chesterfield at which time it would have been
brought to account as stated by Mr Page.
The four (4) other cheques, which form part of exhibit, NJW/5 in total equate to
£360,493.83 and were the four cheques used bt for the transaction
conducted on Monday 13" January 2003 and had been entered into the Forde
Moneychanger. As a result taking the figure for the four cheques of £360,493.83 and
adding to this the £282,000.00 of foreign currency said to be in the AM stock unit we
obtain a-figure of £642,493.83, with other smaller discrepancies found in the accounts
the final overall office shortage was £645,345.18. This figure is not based on taking the
single £278,181.82 cheque into account, as it had not been entered into any of the
accounts at Rugeley Post Office, either on the Forde Moneychanger or the Horizon
system. However at the time of the audit and possibly due to the similarities of the two
amounts, £278,181.82 and £282,000.00, the two were linked and it was not realised at
the time that there was in fact an actual shortage of the ‘AM’ stock unit of £282,000.00.
As a result I began to examine the previous Cash accounts for Rugeley Post Office and
the under copy Command 10 summary printouts. I obtained a number of weekly Cash
accounts from Rugeley Post Office, and those that I could not recover from the Office
itself; I obtained duplicate copies from the accounting section in Chesterfield.
I now produce the following weekly cash account documents in relation to Rugeley Post
Office.
MP/7 Cash account for week 22 (w/e 28.08.02) — Office copy
MP0 Cash account for week 36 (w/e 04.12.02) — Office copy
MP/12 Cash account for week 37 (w/e 11.12.02) — Office copy
MP/14 Cash account for week 38 (w/e 18.12.02) — Office copy
Signature G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
Version 3.0 11/02
°
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
e
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
MPM6
MP/19
MP/21
MP/22
MP/23
MP/24
MPI25
MP/26
MP/27
MP/28
MP/29
MP/30
MPI31
MP/32
MPI33
MP/34
MPI35
MP/36
MP/37
MP/38
MP/39
MP/40
MPI41
MP/42
MP/43
MP/44
MP/45
cSO11A
Cash account for week 39 (w/e 27.12.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 41 (w/e 08.01.03) — Office copy
Cash account for week 18 (w/e 31.07.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 01 (w/e 03.04.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 02 (w/e 10.04.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 17 (w/e 24.07.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 40 (w/e 03.01.03) — Office copy
Cash account for week 35 (w/e 27.11.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 34 (w/e 20.11.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 33 (w/e 13.11.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 32 (w/e 06.11.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 31 (w/e 30.10.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 30 (w/e 23.10.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 29 (w/e 16.10.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 28 (w/e 09.10.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 27 (w/e 02.10.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 26 (w/e 25.09.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 25 (w/e 18.09.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 24 (w/e 11.09.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 23 (w/e 04.09.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 21 (w/e 21.08.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 20 (w/e 14.08.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 19 (w/e 07.08.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 16 (w/e 17.07.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 15 (w/e 10.07.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 14 (w/e 03.07.02) — Office copy
Cash account for week 13 (w/e 26.06.02) — Office copy
Signature ; G RO i Signature witnessed by M Bushell
31
Version 3.0 11102
POL00093755
POL00093755 _
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
MP/46 Cash account for week 12 (w/e 19.06.02) — Office copy
MP/47 Cash account for week 11 (w/e 12.06.02) — Chesterfield copy
MP/48 Cash account for week 10 (w/e 05.06.02) — Chesterfield copy
MP/49 Cash account for week 9 (w/e 29.05.02) — Office copy
MP/50 Cash account for week 8 (w/e 22.05.02) — Office copy
MP/51 Cash account for week 7 (w/e 15.05.02) — Office copy
MP/52_ Cash account for week 6 (w/e 08.05.02) — Office copy
MP/53 Cash account for week 5 (w/e 01.05.02) — Office copy
MP/54 Cash account for week 4 (w/e 24.04.02) — Office copy
MP/55 Cash account for week 3 (w/e 17.04.02) — Office copy
MP/56 Cash account for week 53 (w/e 27.03.02) — Office copy
MP/57 Cash account for week 52 (w/e 20.03.02) — Office copy
MP/58 Cash account for week 51 (w/e 13.03.02) — Office copy
MP/59 Cash account for week 50 (w/e 06.03.02) — Office copy
By also examining the top copy of the Command 10 summary printouts obtained from
the accounting section in Chesterfield, item number MEP/1 and the under copy sections
of the Forde Moneychanger till rolls recovered from Rugeley Post Office, item number
MP/81, I was able to extract the figures in relation to the Foreign Currency on hand as
declared on the cash account and that shown on the Forde Moneychanger Command
10 summary printout. As stated previously those two figures should be the same as the
figure shown on the Command 10 summary should be the figure fed into the Horizon
Computer system by the operator, which ultimately produces the Cash account printout.
When I carried out this exercise, I noticed some differences, which I have illustrated on
a further schedule called the Foreign Currency Discrepancies Schedule, which I now
produce as item number MP/6,
Signature I G RO 1 Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSOtIA Version 3.0 11/02
32
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
eo
Witness Statement :
{CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
This schedule commences in week number 36 (week ending 28.11.01) and finishes in
week number 43 (w/e 22.01.03). From the office cash accounts in my possession I
have extracted the declared Cash on Hand figure for each week (page 2, table 5 line
50) and then also the declared Foreign Currency Sterling Equivalent figure for each
week (page 2, table 5 line 52). I have then extracted the ‘Cash Held’ figure, which is in
Sterling from the weekly Command 10 summaries either from those supplied to me by
Chesterfield or from the under copies in my possession.
Although this schedule commences in week 36 (wle 28.11.01), I have not obtained the
relevant figure until week 50 (w/e 06.03.02), which is when schedule MP/3, commences
and is the period from which this enquiry commences.
In week 50 (w/e 06.03.02), the office cash account states that there was £133,340.07 in
sterling cash, physically on the premises at close of Business on Wednesday 06.03.02.
It also states that there was £15,255.02 sterling equivalent of foreign Currency
physically on the premises at close of Business on Wednesday 06.03.02.
Examination of the relevant Forde Moneychanger Command 10 summary printout for
week 50, part of exhibit item number MEP/1, the ‘Cash Held’ figure also shows the
sterling value of £15,255.02 as it should do and therefore there is no inflation of the
amounts declared.
Between week 50 (w/e 06.03.02) and week 12 (w/e19.06.02) the figures declared as
Foreign Currency (sterling. value) on the cash account match those shown on the
Command 10 summary printout apart from 3 of those weeks (weeks 51, 01 &10), in
weeks 51 and 10 the difference (inflation) matches the declared revaluation figure on
the appropriate Command 10 summaries and therefore it would appear that whoever
Signature i G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSoitA
Version 3.0 11102
.
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
input those weeks figures into the Horizon Computer system mistakenly added the
tevaluations figure to the Cash Held figure and entered this figure into the Horizon
Computer system. As for week 01, this was different by 40 pence, which is likely to
have been a keying in error.
During those weeks it can be seen that the sterling equivalent of Foreign Currency
physically held at the office on Wednesday evening remained between £3,000 and
£38,000, whilst the Cash On hand figure ranged from £133,000.00 to £365,000.00, with
the majority being in the upper £200,000 to lower £300,000 area. -
In week 13 (w/e 26.06.02), there was an Audit carried out at Rugeley Post Office and
as stated to me by Mr Page during interview, he was not present at the time of the audit
as he was holidaying in Euro Disney, however, Mr Page did contact the office by
telephone numerous times that day and spoke to both his staff and members of the
audit team. It would appear that the Office accounts had not been completed when the
audit team went into the office on Thursday 27" June 2002 and therefore the audit
team spent most of their tine completing the office accounts rather than carrying out a
verification of those accounts.
Subsequently between week 14 (w/e 03.07.02) and 16 (we 17.07.02) there are a
couple of discrepancies the 1*
for just under £5,000 in week 14, and then just under
£50,000 in week 16 with a Nil inflation in week 15. The large discrepancy caused in
week 16 is due to the revaluation figure having being used by someone at the office to
feed into the Horizon computer system rather than the ‘Cash Held’ figure.
In week 17 (w/e 24.07.02) the Cash on hand figure declared is £421,791.72, indeed
over the month of July 2002 the cash on Hand figures have all been over the
£400,000.00 level. The Foreign Currency on hand figure declared on the cash account
Signature G RO ' Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csot1A i i Version 3.0 11/02
POL00093755
POL00093755 _
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC. Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
is £6,683.95, which is identical to the figure declared on the appropriate Command 10
summary printout.
The following week, week number 18 (w/e 31.07.02) the cash on Hand figure reduces
to £87,162.07, the Foreign currency on hand figure increases to £191,095.97 whilst the
appropriate Command 10 summary for that week indicated that the Cash Held figure
was 13,595.97, a difference of £177,500.00.
Whilst conducting this investigation it became known to me that during week 18 an
amount of cash, £160,000.00, was despatched from Rugeley Post Office back to the
Cash Centre on the instruction of a Retail Line Manager, Mr Stephen Cartwright. Mr
Cartwright and Mr Douglas Brown explain the reasons behind this course of action in
their respective statements.
Subsequently there is a difference of £85,636.65 in week 19 (w/e 07.08.02) followed by
two further weeks, weeks 20 & 21 (we 14.08.02 & 21.08.02) where there is no
difference in Foreign currency declared values to the Command 10 summary figure.
However from week 22 (w/e 28.08.02) through to week 41 (w/e 08.01.03) which is the
last full cash account period whilst Mr Page was in charge of the office, there is a
steady inflation each week commencing with an inflation of £188,000.00 (week 22) and
reaching £282,000.00 in week 41, which is also the exact amount indicated as Foreign
Currency in the ‘AM’ stock unit on the day of the Audit, 14 January 2003, item number
KO/01 refers.
Throughout this same period the Cash on Hand figures declared on the cash account
remain lower than previously, being in the £40,000.00 to £160,000.00 bracket, when
previously they had reached levels in excess of £400,000.00 and the Foreign Currency
on hand declared on the cash accounts jumps from between £3,000 to £38,000 prior to
Signature i G R O i Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO11A i I Version 3.0 11/02
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
week number 18 to between £100,000.00 to £450,000.00.
The evidence as borne out by the Command 10 summary printouts from week number
18 (w/e 31.07.02) onwards suggests that whoever fed in the value for Foreign Currency
on-Hand into the Horizon computer system at the end of each cash account week, input
false figures and inflated these figures by several hundred thousand pounds at a time,
leading the Post Office to believe that a higher value of foreign currency was physically
held at Rugeley Post Office when in fact it wasn’t, as borne out by the evidence of the
audit on Tuesday 14" January 2003 when £282,000.00 worth of foreign currency was
said to be held within ‘AM’ stock unit though was physically not there.
This inflation of the Forde Moneychanger Cash held figures seems to have started in
week number 18, which in itself may be of relevance as that is the same week when Mr
Stephen Cartwright personally oversaw the removal of £160,000.00 from Rugeley Post
Office as the Post Office matrix team had considered that the office was holding too
much cash and had made attempts to have some of it returned without success.
Also if you compare the figures before week 18, for instance weeks 14 to 16, if you add
the cash on hand figure (column 3) to the Foreign Currency on Hand figure (column 4)
you obtain a figure of roughly £425,000.00 to £465,000.00.. This declaration suggests
that at the end of the relevant cash account week, the office physically had on the
premises, that value in cash, whether that be in sterling or foreign currency.
After week 18, from week 22 onwards, if you perform the same addition you still obtain
values in the £320,000.00 to £500,000.00 bracket mark, however these figures include
the inflated values in the declared foreign currency and so if the inflation is subtracted
from the overall value, the values drop to between £130,000.00 to £270,000.00. By
adding an inflated value to these figures they can be brought back to the level pre week
Signature i Signature witnessed by M Bushell
csontA Version 3.0 11/02
36
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
suggests that he would be holding an additional amount (mainly the Euros for_'
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
number 18 before any cash was actually removed from Rugeley Post Office.
During one of the PACE interviews I had with Mr Page on Wednesday 23% April 2003, I
questioned him briefly about the £282,000.00 figure in the AM stock unit and was
informed by Mr Page that the figure on the Command 10 printout only related to the
currency held within the Bureau till, therefore for example the Command 10 printout
may say £50,000, which would mean that within the Bureau till itself there was various
amounts of currency giving a total sterling value of £50,000. However, Mr Page then
) in his main safe, which is known as AM stock and this is why there are two
different figures, one on the Command 10 summary printout and a different value on
the cash account. It is therefore suggested by Mr Page that the bulk of the euros
destined fo -
handed to
Iwould be held in his main safe (‘AM’ stock unit) and
When he attended the office.
It is evident from schedule MP/3 and copy till rolls MP/3A that the transactions were
keyed into the Forde Moneychanger when the euros were sold to i
Having now examined the till rolls for the bulk currency transfers received from Hemel
Hempstead and produced schedule MP/82 and associated copy till rolls sections
MP/83, an exercise that had not been done prior to interviewing Mr Page on 23° April
2003, it is evident that the large volumes of currency received, mainly consisting of the
euros for iwere ‘booked’ into the Forde Moneychanger on the day of
receipt.
Having keyed these entries into the Forde Moneychanger the associated value of
currency held becomes part of the Bureau stock unit (BU stock unit) regardless of I
whether most of it was held in the main safe or not, indeed £200,000.00 worth of euros
would probably not have fitted into the Bureau till.
Signature \ G RO } Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cson1A H 1 Version 3,0 11/02
Lenenennnennned 37
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
The Post Office at Rugeley used a number of Stock units, to identify them, for instance
those used by the counter staff were given alphabetical/numerical letters to distinguish
them, i.e. stock unit AA or 01 etc. As mentioned previously the Bureau till was labelled
and identified as stock unit BU and Mr Page had his own stock unit labelled and
identified as Stock unit AM.
Once the Currency received from Hemel Hempstead had been keyed into the Forde
Moneychanger, as clearly. it was being, as indicated on schedule MP/82, the value of
the BU stock unit would increase by that amount ‘booked’ in. No other stock units
would increase in value even if the euros themselves were placed in the main safe, AM
stock unit. For the value to increase in the AM stock unit an operator would be required
to manually key that value into the Horizon computer system and associated it with the
AM stock unit.
Since all of the currency being received from Hemel Hempstead was being correctly
keyed into the Forde Moneychanger it could not be booked in under AM stock unit as
well. Furthermore if an amount of currency had not been ‘booked’ into the Forde
Moneychanger then the command 10 weekly summary could not illustrate correctly how
much currency had been sold during the course of the week as the Forde
Moneychanger would not be ‘aware’ of the existence of other currency held in the Post
Office as it had not been ‘booked’ into the system.
For instance in week 42 (week commencing 09.01.03), schedule MP/82 shows that on
Thursday gh January 2003 at 10:47 hours, 150,000 euros with a sterling value of
£92,177.23 was ‘booked’ into the Forde Moneychanger.. On the following day, Friday
40" January 2003 at 14:46 hours a further 150,000 euros with a sterling value of
£92,489.83 was ‘booked’ into the Forde Moneychanger. Then on Saturday ai®
Signature Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cSo11A, Version 3.0 11/02
38
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL.
January 2003 at 11:39 hours a further 150,000 euros with a sterling value of
£92,707.05 was ‘booked’ into the Forde Moneychanger. Therefore within the 1° 3 days
of cash account week number 42, Rugeley Post Office had taken delivery of and
‘booked’ in 450,000 euro with a sterling value of £277,374.11 into the Forde
Moneychanger.
On Monday 13" January 2003, the day of rrest, Mr Page sold toc
f “'584,000 euros for whic! i paid £360,493.83.
An examination of item number DAE/01, a Command 2 and Command 3 printouts
produced from the Forde Moneychanger by the auditor Mrs Edwards on 14" January
2003 indicated that during the course of that week (week number 42) there had been
44 transactions where notes (currency) had been bought amounting to a sterling value
of £371,082.58 and that the balance of currency left as shown on the Command 2
printout indicated a sterling value of £21,263.79.
Of the £371,082.58 worth of currency sold that week, £360,493.83 was as a result of
H ‘transaction in the early hours of Monday 43" January 2003, which only
‘leaves a litle over £10,000.00 worth of other currency sales. There could not have
e possibly been anymore euros at the office, as everything received from Hemel
Hempstead since at least week number 33 (we 13.11.02 when schedule MP/82
commences) had been ‘booked’ into the Forde Moneychanger upon receipt and
therefore the figure of £282,000.00 shown in the AM stock unit is false, indeed further
Horizon balance printouts for AM stock unit, recovered from the office by me, show
similar figures of foreign currency held which identically match the inflated figures
shown on my schedule MP/6 for the corresponding week.
Signature I G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
1 cSo1tA Version 3.0 11102
* 45)
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 58, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
I recovered from the archived office files at Rugeley Post Office, certain documentation
in relation to various cash account weeks and the Bureau (BU) stock unit and the AM
stock unit, these were the only documents I could locate at the office in relation to the
BU stock unit and the AM stock unit for the period in question.
I now produce the following exhibits:-
MP/8 Horizon Office snapshot printout for week 22 (w/e 28.08.02) showing a foreign
Currency sterling figure of £283,616.12
MP/3 Horizon Bureau Stock final balance printout for week 22 showing a foreign
Currency sterling figure of £95,616.12.
MP/11 Horizon Office snapshot printout for AM Stock unit week 36 showing a foreign
Currency sterling figure of £255,000.00.
MP/13 Horizon Bureau Stock final balance printout for week 37 showing a foreign
Currency sterling figure of £98,936.38.
MP/15 Horizon Office final balance printout for AM Stock unit week 36 showing a
Foreign currency sterling figure of £270,000.00
MP7 Horizon Office final balance printout for AM Stock unit week 39 showing a
Foreign currency sterling figure of £272,000.00
MP/18 Horizon Bureau Stock final balance printout for week 39 showing a foreign
Currency sterling figure of £15,775.05.
Signature witnessed by M Bushell
Signature I ;
cSonA Lcceeeeeneeesennce Version 3,0 11102
40
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
MP/20 Horizon Office final balance printout for AM Stock unit week 41 showing a
Foreign currency sterling figure of £282,000.00
Furthermore as shown ‘by schedule MP/3, the large volumes of euros being-sold to tf
loccur from at least 9" March 2003, yet throughout March 2002 through to
June 2002, the value declared on the weekly cash account relating to Foreign currency
on hand compared to the Cash Held figure on the Forde Moneychanger till roll
(Command 10 printout) is exactly the same as it should be and there are no inflated
figures, therefore there could not have been an additional amount of euros being held
However
in Mr Page's main safe (AM stock unit) awaiting collection by! GRC I
since the incident with the RLM in week 18 (w/e 31.07.02), there would continually be
two different figures being declared, the correct one on the Command 10 printout,
which was being sent to Chesterfield and an inflated one in the relevant section of the
Cash account.
Following the initial interview I had with Mr Carl Page at Stafford Police station on the
evening of Wednesday 15" January 2003, Mr Page was released on Police bail to
return to Stafford Police Station on Tuesday 4" March 2003. Subsequently on that day,
Mr Page was further bailed to return to Stafford Police Station on Tuesday 4° April
2003.
Both”
; ‘who had been arrested on Monday
13" January 2003, were initially interviewed by Officers from H.M Customs & Excise.
was later further interview by Police Officers from Staffordshire Major Crime
unit, when the investigation was passed over to them and subsequently
was
bailed to return to Cannock Police Station on Monday 24h February 2003 at which time
he was released from Police bail with no further action being taken against him by
Signature ; Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO11A
Version 3.0 11/02
"
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
either the Police or the Post Office.
P GRO} fter having being interviewed by Customs & Excise and whilst still in
_ fo return to Cannock police station
on Monday 24 February 2003 at which time he was further bailed upon my instruction
to attend Stafford Police Station on Tuesday a April 2003.
On Tuesday 1* April 2003, together with my colleague, Mr Colin Price, I commenced a
tape recorded interview in accordance with P.A.C.E with I
also in attendance throughout the interview wa Olicitor, Mr Ghulam
Sohail. The interview commenced at 11:24 hours and concluded on tape number two
at 12:57 hours.
I now produce the mater tape reference number 21/CG/995/03/01 as item number
MP/86 and tape reference number 21/CG/995/03/02 as item number MP/87.
Subsequently I have prepared a transcript of this interview, which I now produce as
item numbers MP/88 and MP/89.
It can be seen that at the commencement of the interview, I was handed by Mr Sohail a
typed statement from I which contained a few handwritten amendments.
I was informed by Mr Sohail that this prepared statement was the only informatio
any further questions put to him.
I read out the statement handed to me by Mr Sohail in full on tape for the record. The
statement also bore an original date of 24'" February 2003 that had been crossed out
and a manuscript entry of 1% April 2003 written over it. Mr Sohail explained that the
Signature I G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
CSO11A Version 3.0 11/02
°
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
POL00093755
Witness Statement
(CJ Act 1967, s9; MC Act 1980, ss 5A(3)(a) and 5B, MC Rules 1981, r 70)
Continuation of statement of MANISH PATEL
statement had been prepared in readiness for an interview on 24h February 2003, the
4" bail return date from 13" January 2003 and as no further interview had taken place
that day, the prepared statement had just been amended to reflect the date of the
interview conducted on 1* April 2003.
The original Statement was retained by Mr Sohail though I was provided with a copy of
it, which I now produce as item number MP/103.
Although further questions were put t
him throughout the course of the tape-recorded interview, hose to
reply “no comment" to all of my questions apart from one question in tape number 2 at
about 34 minutes when I asked [__ “I about whether Mr Page had ever
queried him over the post dated cheques he handed over, Mr Whitehouse replied “no”
to this question.
Later that day on 1* April 2003, Mr Page had also been bailed to return to Stafford
Police station and in the delay in interviewin
the morning, that
interview not concluding until 12:57 hours and Mr Page's arrival at 12:00 hours further
compounded by the fact that Mr Page had arrived at the Police Station without a
solicitor and when informed that a further interview would take place, he suggested that
he would like to have a solicitor present. Although the Custody Sergeant made
attempts to contact the solicitor requested by Mr Page, this person was unavailable and
therefore a Duty solicitor was contacted. It transpired that a duty Solicitor was already
present at Stafford Police Station though was with another client and by the time she
had finished with her first engagement and then spoken to Mr Page, I was informed by
the Custody Sergeant that we had about 45 minutes left before Mr Page had been in
Custody for a total period of 24 hours.
Signature I G RO I Signature witnessed by M Bushell
cso11A ‘
Version 3,0 11102
.
POL00093755
POL00093755