POL00044874
POL00044874
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 : Michael Francis MATTHEWS
Address : Post Office Ltd Investigation
Team
PO Box1
Croydon
CR9 1N
Signature
Date
Statement Tendered By
POL00044874
POL00044874
Prosecutor : Juliet MCFARLANE
Address : Solicitor
1.1
1.2
1.3
Criminal Law Team
Royal Mail Group pic
6A Ecclestone Street
London
SW1W 9LT
Statement of Information
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. #
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
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.
Civil Proceedings
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
_The_Defendant.is.60 years old and was born on the I
POL00044874
POL00044874
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 Pentra Berw 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" Oct
2005 by Investigators from Post Office Ltd Investigation Team.
During the interview Mr Thomas agreed 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. The defendant agreed
that he was fully responsible for the £48,000 audit shortage. The
defendant nevertheless, in the main declined to answer questions,
which would incriminate him.
On the 29" of September 2006 at Caernarfon Crown Court the
Defendant pleaded guilty to a count on the intendment of False
Accounting contrary to Section 17 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968.
The offence was committed between the 30"of September 2004
and the 14" of October 2005.
The False Accounting plea was accepted in place of a count 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. Nevertheless the False Accounting plea was
accepted, as there was a risk of failure in respect of the Theft
count on the incitement, when tested against the burden of proof,
beyond reasonable doubt.
Personal History / Lifestyle
_.GRO_
4.3
4.4
5
5.1
POL00044874
POL00044874
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
5.2
6.1
6.2
remuneration from Post Office Ltd to provide Post Office services.
The remuneration, which was paid monthly, varied and was
typically in the region of £2,000 to £2,200.
The defendant is in receipt of a monthly pension from Royal Mail
Group of a sum in the region of £400
Restraint Order
On Tuesday, 7° November 2006 in the Croydon Crown Court His
Honour 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 is
associated as appendix 1
7
71
7.2
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 fraud is
£80,967.20. This figure is obtained as follows;
The audit shortage of £48,454.87 from the Post Office® account
for which he has not paid yet although he was immediately liable
for it.
7.3
7.4
7.5
76
7.7
POL00044874
POL00044874
The increase in the value of this money between the commission
of the offence and Nov 2006 (the latest month Retail Price Figures
(RPI) figures are available) is £2,480.87
Notes to 7.3 The figure is worked out as follows:
Period of Offending (RP! figure for Sep 2005) minus (RPI figure
for Oct 2004), divided by (RPI figure for Oct 2004), multiplied by
£48, 454.87. To get an average value over the period of offending,
this figure is then divided by two. Therefore 193.3 — 188.6 + 188.6
= 0.0249204 x £48, 454.87= £1207.51 +2 = £603.75.
Period from end of offending to Nov 06 (RPI figure for Nov
2006) minus (RPI figure for Nov 2005), divided by (RPI figure for
Nov 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 state of the cash account, as the defendant’s contract to
provide services would have been suspended.
The increase in the value of this money between the commission
of the offence and Nov 2006 on a month-by-month basis is
£1,511.70 A schedule detailing how this figure was arrived at is
associative as appendix 2.
The figures above have been calculated on the dates detailed in
the incitement. The exact date that Mr Thomas incurred his first
shortage is not known however the prosecution is content to
accept these dates for the purpose of confiscation.
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
of Appeal, Criminal Division, in the matter of R v John Adeyemi
Layode, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division 12 March 1993.
POL00044874
POL00044874
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” it is thought that the only
benefit that the defendant has derived from his criminal
conduct is that as detailed above 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
ii. 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 7.7 Ai. In these circumstances
there would be a serious risk of injustice if the assumption
were made
Summary of Benefit
7.1
Table of Benefit
Source Detail Amount
POL00044874
POL00044874
Available Amount
6.3 The onus is on the Defendant to provide the Court with full details
of all his 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 realizing the property.
6.4 The free property that I have identified is the £64,947, which the
defendant has lodged with his solicitors. The information from Mr
Philip M Rose of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the insolvency
practitioners who are dealing with the bankruptcy estate of the
Defendant has informed me that due to the date that the defendant
petitioned for bankruptcy, none of the debts can be described
“preferential debts in bankruptcy.
7 Confiscation Order
If the Court accepts that the Defendant has benefited from the
proceeds of crime to the extent of £121,289.44 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.
8 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.
POL00044874
POL00044874
Any reply to this statement made under the Proceeds of Crime Act
2002 should be served on Maidstone Crown Court, and a copy
sent to the Criminal Law Team Royal Mail Group plc.