POL00108074
POL00108074
POSTOFFICE LTD
FARZANA AKHTER
INITIAL ADVICE
ProsecutionCase
1. Analysis of Post Office Card Account transactions at
Darnhill Post Office highlighted a number of double cash
withdrawal transactions between 18 October 2012 and 14
January 2013. The user identification for the majority of these
transactions were FAKO0O1 and FAK 002, which both
belonged to Farzana Akhter. The sub postmaster, Samira
Ansari confirmed that Ms. Akhter who had been a counter
assistant at the branch, had left in February 2013; the date
when these transactions ceased.
2. The customers who were affected by these transactions,
were contacted and 8 of these confirmed that they had been
unauthorised. There were 16 confirmed unauthorised
transactions amounting to £3105. All of these customers were
elderly.
POL00108074
POL00108074
3. Ms. Akhtar was located working at another Post Office, the
Townhead branch and on the 15 May 2013 she was spoken
to by POL investigators and invited for interview.
4, On 25t June 2013 she said in interview:-
e that she did not make any unauthorised transactions and
only ever gave the customers what they asked for
e she did not take any money belonging to POL
e she recalled having a surplus in her share stock unit only
once in the sum of £43
e claimed that others served under her user ID
e that her sub postmaster would give her ID code to others
to use
¢ because “the other girl didn’t have the ID”
e could not recall how many times customers came in and
took money out twice
e when put to her that some transactions occurred on
Saturdays when she worked alone, she said later in the
interview that the sub postmaster did come in on some
Saturdays when they were busy. This was to help out
and he served under her ID and that the others were
aware of her password.
Defence Case
5. The defendant maintains that she only ever gave the
customers what they requested. Her defence will
presumably be based on the suggestion that the customers
POL00108074
POL00108074
are either lying or all mistaken and have due to their age
forgotten or become confused about making duplicate
withdrawals.
Statements
6. I have seen a number of statements all of which need to be
signed. The statement of Steve Bradshaw, Investigator,
suggests he is retired. Kevin Ryan should provide a further
statement setting out what a Post Office Card Account is,
what it can be used for and the exact procedure for making a
cash withdrawal. The receipts that are generated as a result
and who these are handed to. His exhibits KR/1 to KR/ 8 do
not make reference to the particular customers by name and
this needs to be clarified, along with amounts stolen from
each. Has the possibility of special measures been discussed
with victims? Can it be established by reference to the
complainants accounts that they were not in the habit of
making duplicate withdrawals from their accounts. Kevin
Ryan or someone else needs to clarify the dates when the
defendant, the sub postmaster and the two other counter
clerks referred to worked at the branch. Did anyone else
work at the branch during the relevant period. What is the
correlation between the defendants employment at the
branch and the occurrence of duplicate transactions. When
did they start and when did they stop. The defendant seeks
to shift blame upon the other members of staff in interview.
Zak and Kumal are referred to in interview. Statements
POL00108074
POL00108074
ought to be obtained from them if possible confirming what
they knew if anything about the defendants password,
sharing passwords generally, working on the defendant's
terminal when she was logged on. At one point in interview
the defendant seeks to suggest that another female member
of staff, (query Kumal) did not have her own ID. Can Kumal
or the Sub postmaster state that this is not correct. Enquiry
should be made to confirm what calls if any were placed
from the branch to the helpdesk regarding any faulty
equipment particularly pinpads, and clarification of why
these were changed in October.
Horizon Issues
7. The case is based on data provided by the Horizon system.
Given the defendant’s denial of any wrongdoing, the
inference that could be drawn is that if she and the
complainants are both telling the truth that the system is at
fault. One would therefore expect the defence to jump on the
Horizon bandwagon.
Discussion
8. This case could properly be charged with individual charges
of theft against the defendant in relation to each
complainant, and I will be able to draft the charges once I
have information regarding the amounts stolen from each of
them and the relevant dates to hand.
9. The case could be prosecuted once the further evidence has
been obtained and the statements signed. Disclosure of the
interim Second Sight and Helen Rose reports will need to be
made in due course
10. In the light of the Second Sight Report I would suggest that
a suitable expert is identified and able to prepare a report as
to the integrity of the Horizon system and the data it
provides, before a summons is issued in this case.
Andrew Bolc
Cartwright King Solicitors 31% August 2013
POL00108074
POL00108074