POL00052020
POL00052020
IN THE CROWN COURT INDICTMENT
AT STAFFORD TRIAL NO. S20090079
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION RELEVANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16 (3)
OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
REGINA
Vv
SUSAN JANE RUDKIN
STATEMENT DETAILS
Prepared By: Gerald Owen Harbinson
Signature: I G RO
Date: bone
06: o1 2009,
Statement Tendered By
Prosecutor: Jarnail SINGH(Principle Lawyer)
Address: Royal Mail Group Legal Service:
44
1.2
13
14
24
34
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
POL00052020
POL00052020
Statement of Information
The prosecutor has requested that the Court proceed to confiscation under Section 6 (3(a)), 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, and that it is therefore appropriate for the Court to
make the assumptions under Section 10 of the Act in determining the defendant's benefit. The
defendant is believed to have a criminal lifestyle as-
The defendant has been convicted of an offence committed over at least six months and
the benefit is at least £5,000 (Sections 75(2)(c),75(4)
« between the 1 day of January 2007 and the 20" day of August 2008 at Ibstock Post Office
stole £43,894.15 belonging to Post Office Limited
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 her general
criminal conduct. If the court decides the defendant does not have a criminal lifestyle the court must
decide if she has benefited from her particular criminal conduct
This is the statement of information dealing with all matters relevant by G Harbinson an Accredited
Financial Investigator into the financial affairs of Susan Jane Rudkin (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 it is known to me,
from which any Confiscation Order made by the Court may be satisfied.
Civil Proceedings
No civil proceedings have been commenced by the victim against the defendant.
Summary of Offence
On Wednesday the 20" August 2008 an audit at Ibstock Sub Past Office, 118-120 High Street,
Ibstock, LE67 6LJ revealed a shortage in the office accounts of £43,856.89. As a result of the audit
shortage, Mr Rudkin.was precautionary suspended from his position as Sub-Postmaster,
The defendant was an assistant working at Ibstock Sub Post Office, 118-120 High Street, Ibstock,
LE67 6LJ. The incumbent Subpostmaster was the defendant's Husband, Ernest Michael Rudkin who
had been in post since the 26" October 2000.
On the 20" August 2008, Post Office Investigators interviewed the defendant under caution.
During that interview the defendant stated that the office had been experiencing losses in the Post
Office accounts from approximately January 2006 and that she had been inflating the cash on hand
figure in the accounts to cover the shortages.
She further stated, during interview, that she had taken cash from the Post Office to cover payment
of general bills, which had been paid it into a joint bank account held with her husband, The
defendant stated that she alone was responsible and that no one else had any knowledge of the
theft.
3.6
37
3.8
39
4a
5.4
a
IN)
5.3
61
6.2
63
7A
7.2
POL00052020
POL00052020
The Defendant appeared at Burton-on-Trent Magistrates Court on the 23" March 2009 at 10am.
And pleaded Guilty to the charge of-
Between the 1 day of January 2007 and the 20" day of August 2008 at Ibstock Post Office stole
£43,894.15 beloriyiny lv Post Office Limited’, (Contrary to Section (4) of the Theft Act 1968)
The case was then transferred for Sentence at Stafford Crown Court on the 1* May 2009 at 10.30am
where the defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years with a
Community Order of 300 hours unpaid work and electronically monitored curfew for 6 months
requiring the Defendant to stay indoors between the hours of 10pm and Sam
Following this the confiscation timetable was set.
Copy of tape transcription of Interview dated 20" August 2008 associated as appendix a.
Valuation of Drugs (Drugs cases only)
N/A.
Personal History / Lifestyle
The defendant is a 54 year old female (Date of Birth I she currently resides with
her husband Mr. E. M. Rudkin at
The defendant is subject of an electronically monitored curfew order requiring the Defendant to stay
indoors between the hours of 10pm and 5am.
There are no recorded previous convictions.
Legitimate Sources of Income
“which operates
The defendant owns, with Mr, E. M. Rudkin,
‘as a Sub-Post office and retail outlet. The income from these outlets are
Post Office pay to Mr. Mr. E. M. Rudkin January 2007 to 34 July 2008 £137,351.15
Taxable profits for defendant dated for 20006/07 £17,500
Copy of sub-postmasters payments associated at appendix b.
Financial Record Examination
the names of the defendant and Mr. E. M.
ived payments relating to the partnership retail outlet at!”
it is into this account that the criminal property has been paid. I have
payments into the account between 4" January 2007 and 20" August
Alliance & Leicester account t_ jin the names of the defendant and Mr. €. M. Rudkin the,
account received payments relating to the partnership retail outlet at!
V1 have scheduled the business payments into the account between 4° January 2007 afd
30! August 2008 and combined this with Lloyds TSB accoun sort code {_
show the gross turnover of the retail outlet. £444,646.30
}and Alliance & Leicester
sociated as app:
73
74
94
9.2
POL00052020
POL00052020
M, Rudkin. This account deals with the mortgage payments for I GRO 4
have scheduled the payments into the account bet\
these payments were made from Lloyds TSB account!”
criminal property was pai
Lloyds TSB loan accou ” i
M. Rudkin. This account deals with the mortgage payments for!
have scheduled the payments into the account between January 2007 and August
all these payments were made from Lloyds TSB accoun'
criminal property was paid. The total payments made were £52,474.21
Copy of schedule of Lloyds TSB loan accounts!
associated as appendix d.
M&S Money Account! “yin the name of the defendant. I have scheduled the
payments made and liste ayment Received Via Post Office Giro’ As it may be agreed that
these constitute potential criminal property payments of the money stolen.
associated as appendix e.
Copy of schedule of M&S Money Account
Restraint Order
On 224 September 2008 in the Croydon Crown Court His Honour Judge AINLEY made a Restraint
Order I against the defendant which prohibited her from dealing with her assets,
listed in section 4 of that order, save as authorised by the Crown Court.
A copy of the restraint order and witness statement associated as appendix f.
Extent of Benefit from Criminal Conduct
Benefit derived from Charges
The total amount of benefit obtained by this defendant as a result of the offences in these
proceedings is calculated as follows:
Benefit derived as a result of the offences as charged
a) Benefit as a result of the theft. £43,894.15
Benefit as a result of or in connection with the crime
b) The gross turnover of the business during the relevant period £266,565.99
oc) Total benefit £310,460.14
The calculation of benefit (b) derived by the defendant has been made on the basis of the judgement of
Lord Justice Leveson in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the matter of R v Neuberg [2007]
EWCA CRIM 1994 and Lord Justice Aikens in the Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal
(Criminal Division) in the matter of R v SEAGER [2009] EWCA CRIM 1303 namely, that the benefit is
the grass income or turnover of the business for the period specified in the count on the indictment.
Calculation of Benefit
a) = the loss recorded at audit and the charge (Contrary to Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968)
94
POL00052020
POL00052020
6) = (The gross turnover of the retail outlet at from 4th
January 2007 to 20" August 2008) minus (The Sup-postmasters pay from January 2007 to July
2008) minus (the audit loss- minus- the M&S Money payments from 25” January 2007 to 11°
August 2008)
= a)+b)
Therefore a) = £43,894,15
Therefore b) = (E444,646,30)-(E13 7,351.15) - (43,894.15 - £3,164,99) = (£266,565.99)
Therefore c) = £43,894.15 + £266,565. 99= £310, 460.14
The calculation of the 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.
Copy of R v Neuberg [2007] and R v SEAGER associated as appendix g.
Copy of R v John Adeyemi Layode associated as appendix h.
Assumptions
Property transferred to the defendant after the relevant date
I have not scheduled any accounts showing unidentified lodgements within bank accounts held by
the defendant in this case. This is because although the Court may decide under section 1:2 of this
statement that the defendant in this case has by definition a “Criminal Lifestyle” the prosecution is
content that the benefit that the defendant has obtained from her criminal conduct is wholly
detailed in the defendants “Particular Criminal Conduct” of this statement and in this circumstance
there may be a serious risk of injustice if this assumption was made.
Property held at any time after the date of conviction
Uhave not scheduled any property held in this case. This is because i.
“(Title Number was purchased in November 2000. However the payments
I gairist the mortgage account for the property came from accoun
GRO} and into which criminal! property was placed and as such it may be that the court considers
the equity in the property benefit from crime.
Expenditure incurred after the relevant date
I have not scheduled any accounts showing expenditure within bank accounts held by the defendant
in this case. This is because although the Court may decide under section 1:2 of this statement that
the defendant in this case has by definition a “Criminal Lifestyle” the prosecution is content that the
benefit that the defendant has obtained from his criminal conduct is wholly detailed in the
defendants “Particular Criminal Conduct” of this statement and in this circumstance there may be a
serious risk of injustice if this assumption was made.
10
11.
414
POL00052020
POL00052020
Free Property
(Title Numbe:
other interests in it.
Summary of Benefit
Table of Benefit
Source Detail Amount
Benefit from conviction Theft £43,894.15
The gross turnover of the business £266,565,99
during the relevant period
Tota’ £310,460.14
Assumptions
Transfers .
Property held
Expenditure I
I Total Benefit [/£310,460.14
Available Amount
The onus is on the defendant to provide the Court with full details of all his free property, including
full internal valuations (carried out by a professional valuer) for any houses she 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,
The free property that I have identified is as follows:
The defendant owns jointly with Mr. E. M, Rudkin I
3 this property has an outstanding gag yc
current market value is £394,294.00 based on the valuation of 8”
£400,000.00. However evidence from the M&S Money Account I
conversation between the defendant and the Post Office Limited Investigate gg
the property has been improved since then andffpt the valuation may be higher than that indicated.
The Equity is in the region of £146,183.70.
°. Copy of Land registry Title document for [7 GRO 4
associated at appendix i.
° Copy of Nationwide house price calculator associated at appendix j.
The onus is on the defendant to provide the Court with full details of all his free property. including
full internat valuations (carried out by a professional valuer) for any houses she has an interest in
The defendant owns a 5 door diesel Vauxhall Vectra CDTI 2005. registratiot
market price for this vehicle is £6,500.00
The above assets and their valuations are provided for the assistance of the Court. The onus
remains with the defendant to show, with evidence that she does not have sufficient assets to meet
the benefit and I rely on the defendant to give full details of all her assets held. (R v Barwick) (R v
Barnham)
POL00052020
POL00052020
¢ Copy of R v Barwick and R v Barnham associated as appendix k.
12 Summary of Realisable Assets
Use the table to set out the assets is short form to assist the Court.
Reference I Asset Value
143 7 £146,183.70
144 5 door diesel Vauxhall Vectra CDT! 2005. £6,500.00
Total Known Assets £152,683.70
13 Defence Response
13.1 Section 17 of the Act allows the Court to order that the defendant respond to the Prosecution
statement indicating the extent to which he accepts each allegation and to give particulars of any
matters upon which he relies. If the defendant fails to comply with such an order he may be treated
as accepting every allegation apart from any allegation he has replied to or any allegation that he
has benefited from his general or particular criminal conduct.
13.2 Any reply to this statement made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be
STAFFORD Crown Court, and a copy sent to the Royal Mail Group Legal Services
GRO H
13.3 The court ordered the defence to serve a reply to this statement by 24" July 2009,
14 Confiscation Order
141 If the Court accepts that the defendant has benefited from the proceeds of crime to the extent of
£310,460.14 then 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.
14.2 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. (Section 7 POCA 2002)
15 Effect of Compensation on Confiscation
15.1 The effect of Section 13 (5) of the Act permits the Court to make a compensation order under
section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 as if a confiscation order had
not been made.
15.2 If the defendant cannot pay both, compensation can be recovered from sums paid in satisfaction of
the confiscation order, (Section 13(6) POCA 2002)
Compensation to Post Office Ltd.
£43,894,15
Shortage Identified at audit
£43,894.15 I
Total
16
Time to Pay
POL00052020
POL00052020
Section 11 of the Act states that a confiscation order must be paid on the making of the order.
However where the defendant shows that he requires time to pay the Court may order payment
within a specified period. That period must not exceed six months from the date the order is made.
Default Sentence
The Court should impose a period of imprisonment in default. The table below is included for
reference and the assistance of the Court. See the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
Sec.139 (4).
Amount of Confiscation order
Default Sentence
An amount not exceeding £200
Up to 7 days
An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500
Up to 14 days
An amount exceeding £500 but not exceeding £1,000
Up to 28 days
An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,500
Up to 45 days
An amount exceeding £2,500 but not exceeding £5,000
Up to 3 months
An amount exceeding £5,000 but nat exceeding £10,000
Up to 6 months
An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000
Up to 12 months
An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000
Up to 48 months
An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000
Up to 2 years
An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000
Up to 3 years
An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding
£1,000,000
Up to 5 years
An amount exceeding £1,000,000
Up to 10 years
POL00052020
POL00052020
STAFFORD CROWN COURT
THE QUEEN
v
SUSAN JANE RUDKIN
COPY PROSECUTION STATEMENT OF
INFORMATION RELEVANT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 16(3) OF
THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
General Counsel to
Royal Mail Group Limited
y,)
O
zAcriminal work folders\singh jarnaill - crm\ 260283 - rudkin\260283 b.doc