POL00044872
POL00044872
IN THE CROWN COURT INDICTMENT
AT CAERNARFON TRIAL NO.
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION RELEVANT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16 (3)
OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
REGINA
Vv
HUGHIE NOEL THOMAS
STATEMENT DETAILS
Prepared By i Michael Francis MATTHEWS
Address : Post Office Ltd Investigation
Team
Signature
Date : 16 January 2007
Statement Tendered By
POL00044872
POL00044872
Prosecutor : Juliet MCFARLANE
Solicitor
Address
1 Statement of Information
1.1 The prosecutor has requested that the Court proceed to
confiscation under Section 6 (3(a)), or the Court has considered it
appropriate so to do under Section 6 (3(b)), of the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002 (hereinafter called the Act). It is considered
appropriate for the court to proceed under Section 6(4), as it is
believed that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle as defined.
1.2 The Court is therefore required to decide if the defendant has a
criminal lifestyle. If the court decides the defendant has a criminal
lifestyle it is required to decide if he has benefited from his general
criminal conduct. If the court decides the defendant does not have
a criminal lifestyle the court must decide if he has benefited from
his particular criminal conduct
1.3 This is the statement of information dealing with all matters deemed
relevant by the Prosecutor in relation to the financial affairs of
Hughie Noel THOMAS (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”)
for the purposes of establishing;
a) The benefit derived by the defendant
b) The nature of the defendant's available property, so far
as Prosecutor knows it, from which any Confiscation
Order made by the Court may be satisfied.
2 Civil Proceedings
2.1. Section 6(6) of the Act indicates that the duty of the Court outlined
in Section 6(5) becomes a power if it believes that any victim of the
conduct has at any time started or intends to start proceedings
against the defendant in respect of any loss, injury or damage
sustained in connection with the conduct.
2.2
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.2
POL00044872
POL00044872
To the best of the Prosecutors knowledge no persons have
commenced any civil proceedings against this defendant in
connection with the criminal conduct to which this statement relates.
Summary of Offences
On the 13" October 2005 an audit was undertaken at Gaerwen
Post Office® branch Holyhead Road Gaerwen Anglesey LL60 6DB.
The audit identified a shortage in the branch cash account of £48,
454.87
The defendant was interviewed, under caution, on the 13'" October
2005 by Investigators from Post Office Ltd Investigation Team.
During the interview the defendant intimated that the loss had built
up over a period of time. He also stated if anything was found to be
wrong it was down to him and nobody else. Additionally the
defendant accepted that he was fully responsible for the audit
shortage. In the main however, the defendant declined to answer
questions of an incriminating nature.
On the 29" September 2006 at Caernarfon Crown Court the
defendant pleaded guilty to the count on the intendment of False
Accounting contrary to Section 17 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968. The
false accounting was admitted over the period of time between the
30" September 2004 and the 14" October2005.
The false accounting plea was accepted in place of a count on the
incitement of Theft of £48,454.87 contrary to Section 1of the Theft
Act 1968. This was pursuant to a Basis of Plea which makes it clear
that no blame was attributed to the computer accounting system in
the Post Office® branch.
The defendant accepted that there was a shortage but he could not
explain how it came about. The prosecution does not accept this,
as the defendant must have an understanding of how the shortage
came about particularly in light of the fact that the defendant has
been the subpostmaster at the branch since June 1994.
Personal History / Lifestyle
The defendant is 60 years old and was born on the 24th December
1946.
The defendant is thought to be living at the property known as
Gaerwen Post Office Holyhead Rd Gaerwen Anglesey LL60 6DB
21. This address is a residential property as well as the site
previously used as a Post Office
4.3
4.4
5.2
6.1
7.1
7.2
POL00044872
POL00044872
The defendant is understood to be married and has two adult
children
There are no known convictions recorded against the defendant
other than the one in these proceedings.
Legitimate Sources of Income
The defendant as the subpostmaster at Gaerwen Post Office®
branch received from Post Office Ltd remuneration to provide Post
Office services. The remuneration, which was paid monthly, varied
and was typically in the region of £2,000 to £2,200. Details of his
net remuneration between October 2004 and October2005 are on
the schedule associated as Appendix 1
The defendant is in receipt of a pension, currently £476.89 gross
per month from Royal Mail Group.
Restraint Order
On Tuesday, 7" November 2006 in Croydon Crown Court His
Honour Judge Kenneth MacRae made a restraint order against the
defendant, which prohibited him from dealing with his assets save
as authorised by the Crown Court. A copy of the restraining order
and witness statement are associated as appendix 2
Extent of Benefit
Particular Criminal Conduct
The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of false accounting.
The benefit to the defendant as a result of this count is £80,967.20.
This figure is obtained as follows;
The audit shortage of £48,454.87 from the Post Office® account.
Subpostmasters are immediately liable for losses in their branch
account. As a result of the false accounting the defendant obtained
a pecuniary advantage by failing to repay the loss and continuing to
earn remuneration as a subpostmaster. Post Office Ltd would have
terminated the defendants contract to provide Post Office Services
had they been aware of the true facts in this matter.
7.3
74
7.5
7.6
7.7
POL00044872
POL00044872
The increase in the value of this money between the commission of
the offence and November 2006 (the latest month that Retail Price
Index (RPI) figures have been produced) is £2,480.87
Notes to 7.3 The figure is worked out as follows:
Period of Offending (RPI figure for September 2005) minus (RPI
figure for October 2004), divided by (RPI figure for October 2004),
multiplied by £48, 454.87 and then divided by 2 (This is to deal with
the unknown rate of the increasing value of the shortage during the
false accounting period). Therefore 193.3 — 188.6 + 188.6 =
0.0249204 x £48, 454.87= £1207.51 +2 = £603.75.
Period from end of offending to November 2006 (RPI figure for
November 2006) minus (RPI figure for November 2005), divided by
(RPI figure for November 2005), multiplied by £48, 454.87.
Therefore 201.10 — 193.60 + 193.60 = 0.0387396 x £48,454.87=
£1,877.12.
The sum of £28,519.76, which he was paid as remuneration,
between October 2004 and October 2005. Post Office Ltd paid this
money as the defendant provided Post Office Ltd Services. This
money would not have been paid had Post Office Ltd been aware
of the true facts in this matter as defendant's contract to provide
services would have been suspended. The amounts of the monthly
payments are detailed on the schedule associated as appendix 1
The increase in the value of this money between the commission of
the offence and November 2006, on a month-by-month basis is a
total of £1,511.70. A schedule showing the relevant calculations is
associated as appendix 1.
The figures above have been calculated on the dates detailed in
the incitement. The exact date that the defendant incurred his first
shortage and as such benefited is not known, however the
prosecution is content to accept these dates for the purpose of
confiscation, especially as the exact loss to the victim in the case
was established by audit.
The calculation of benefit derived by the defendant has been made
on the basis of the judgement of Mr Justice McCulloch in the High
Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, in the matter of R v K
(TLR 01/10/1990), namely, that the benefit is the value of the
property obtained. This judgement has been followed by the Court
POL00044872
POL00044872
of Appeal, Criminal Division, in the matter of R v John Adeyemi
Layode, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division 12 March 1993.
General Criminal Conduct
Assumptions
Property transferred to the defendant after the relevant date
i. I have not scheduled any accounts showing unidentified
lodgments within bank accounts held in this case. This is
because although the defendant in this case has by definition
a “criminal lifestyle” the prosecution is content that the benefit
that the defendant has derived from his criminal conduct is
detailed in his “Particular Criminal Conduct’ In these
circumstances there would be a serious risk of injustice if the
assumption were made.
Property held at any time after the date of Conviction
i I have not identified any property held by the defendant, that
is the benefit from his general criminal conduct, except as
detailed in benefit from Particular Criminal Conduct for the
same reason as detailed in paragraph 7.7 Ai. above. In
these circumstances there would be a serious risk of injustice
if the assumption were made.
Expenditure Incurred after the relevant date
I I have not scheduled any expenditure incurred after the
relevant date for the same reason as detailed in paragraph
7.7 Ai. above.
Summary of Benefit
Table of Benefit
Source Detail Amount
Particular Criminal I Money short on audit £48,454.87
Increase in the value of £2,480.87
Money paid as I £28,519.76
Increase in the value of £1,511.70
General Criminal
Transfers Assumptions £0.00
Property held Assumptions £0.00
Expenditure Assumptions £0.00
9.2
9.3
9.1
9.2
POL00044872
POL00044872
I Total Benefit I £80,967.20 I
Available Amount
The onus is on the defendant to provide the Court with full details of
allhis realisable property, including full internal valuations (carried
out by a professional valuer) for any houses he has an interest in.
He will also need to supply the Court with details of the likely costs
that will be incurred in realising the property.
On Monday 6th November 2006 in Caernarfon Crown Court His
Honour Winston Roddick made an order against the defendant
requiring him to disclose financial information in accordance with
Section 18 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The defendant's
statement was to be returned to the Court by the 8" December
2006. To date the Prosecutor has not received such a statement.
A Land Registry Official Copy of Register dated the 8" November
2006 details that the defendant and his wife Eira Vaughn Thomas
are the proprietors of the property known as The Post Office,
Holyhead Road, Garwen, LL60 6DB. The Land Registry document
is associated as Appendix 3
The property value stated at the 4" May 2000 was £90,000. The
property was re-valued by the Nationwide Building Society as a new
mortgage was taken out in January 2004. The society valued the
property in June 2003 at £125, 000.00. According to the Nationwide
Building Society House Price Calculator a property located in
Wales which was valued at £125, 000.00 in quarter two of 2003
would be worth approximately £188,782.00 in quarter three of 2006.
Information has been received from R Gordon Roberts Laurie & Co
Solicitors that Gaerwen Post Office was sold to a Mr & Mrs E
Thomas for the sum of £100,000 with the completion of the sale
taking place on the 3 October 2006. It is thought that the
defendant sold the property, to one of his children, at a much-
reduced rate in order to repay his liabilities on the property, but to
prevent the equity being realised to satisfy any subsequent
Confiscation Order. As such the Prosecution believe that the sale
of the property at a reduced value should be treated as a tainted gift
in accordance with section 77 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Approximate amount that Gaerwen Post Office was undersold -
£88,782.00
9.5
9.6
POL00044872
POL00044872
The defendant has an occupational pension with Royal Mail Group
that he has been in receipt of since 1991. He currently receives
£476 .89 gross per month. Enquiries are currently in hand with the
Pension Trustees to see if any of the Pension fund is available for
confiscation.
The defendant has an Alliance and Leicester Account number
468906002 with a balance in thought to be £4,474.22. The Royal
Mail pension net payment currently funds this account monthly
Money thought to be in the Alliance & Leicester Account -
£4,474.22
10
11
12
Confiscation Order
If the Court accepts that the Defendant has benefited from the
proceeds of crime to the extent of £80,967.20 the Court should
declare the benefit in that amount, or in any other amount in respect
of which the Court finds the defendant has benefited.
The recoverable amount is an amount equal to the defendant's
benefit from the conduct concerned. If the Defendant shows that
the available amount is less than the benefit, the court should make
a confiscation order in that sum.
Effect of Compensation on Confiscation
The effect of Section 13 (5) of the Act permits the Court to make a
compensation order under section 130 of the Sentencing Act as if a
confiscation order had not been made.
If the defendant cannot pay both, compensation can be recovered
from sums paid in satisfaction of the confiscation order.
Royal Mail Group Plc request compensation in this case as
follows:
Detail Amount
Money short on audit £48,454.87
Increase in the value of money £2,480.87
Money paid as remuneration £28,519.76
Increase in the value of money £1,511.70
POL00044872
POL00044872
Any reply to this statement made under the Proceeds of Crime Act
2002 should be served on Caernarfon Crown Court, and a copy
sent to Royal Mail Group plc, Legal Services, 6A Eccleston Street,
LONDON, SW1W 9LT