CPS News Brief

Two convicted at Norwich Crown Court for defrauding philanthropists out of millions of pounds

Sue Patten, Head of the CPS Central Fraud Division, said after three defendants were today convicted for their part in this fraud:

“This was a scam perpetrated by convincing fraudsters in which wealthy philanthropists were targeted with an investment scheme promising high profits for their charitable causes.

“Graham Dacre, a Norfolk businessman, was persuaded to hand over almost £12 million in 2008 to a supposed high yield investment scheme and had set aside as much as 42 million Euros to invest. He was attracted to the scheme by its apparent connections with religious and humanitarian charities.

“Any reservations the investors had were allayed by the persuasiveness and bluster of those involved as to how the scheme operated and the protection it offered.

“Central to the scheme was Hunt, a formidable fraudster who was willing to turn nasty to protect his interests. When Mr Dacre suggested reporting his concerns to the authorities, Hunt threatened him. Mr Dacre ignored this unfounded threat and went to the police.

“Not one penny of the millions defrauded has been returned to the victims. The CPS will seek orders to enable defrauded monies to be returned to their rightful owners.

“I would like to thank Norfolk police for their thorough and determined work in conducting what was a complex international investigation.”

Background Information:

The defendants were found guilty as follows:

• Ian Yorkshire: Two counts of conspiracy to launder criminal property
• Alan Edward Hunt: Two counts of conspiracy to defraud
• Arthur Trevor Ford-Batey: One count of conspiracy to defraud

David Fraser Roberts, Kevin Brennan and Martin Brennan were acquitted of the charges against them.

Despite asking the men to sign a trust agreement, once Dacre’s money was transferred to the Lichtenstein Landesbank, it was swiftly moved to Swiss, Turkish and British bank accounts.

In December 2007, the New Apostolic Church of Dortmond in Germany invested €10 million with the same fraudsters. They were led to believe the investment would double their money, allowing them to make significant donations to humanitarian causes around the world. Instead, the money was laundered out to a number of individuals, including the girlfriend of Ian Yorkshire, convicted of laundering the proceeds of the fraud. In one example, €100,000 of the invested money was shamelessly used by fraudsters to buy two Mercedes cars.

Defendant Alan Hunt convinced his victims he had previously been a barrister, a solicitor and had served in the Royal Navy. None of this was true.

CPS lawyers have worked closely throughout this case with German prosecutors as well as receiving legal assistance from Jersey, Switzerland, Australia and Turkey. CPS also received informal cooperation and assistance from the Attorney General’s Office in Northern Cyprus.

Former Royal Academy of Music Director of Finance sentenced for fraud

Janet Whitehouse was today sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court.

Andrew Penhale, Deputy Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:

“Janet Whitehouse was a trusted finance director at the Royal Academy of Music, previously believed by her employers to be doing an excellent job. She has admitted betraying that trust by defrauding the Academy to the tune of £236,000.

“She has been sentenced for three offences, involving fabricating paperwork in order to increase her pension fund by £100,000, securing rent-free accommodation for her son valued in excess of £30,000 and submitting false invoices for her own benefit for over £100,000.

“She committed this fraud against a national institution over a period of four years.

“We are pleased to have brought the case to a swift conclusion.”

Background Information:

Janet Whitehouse pleaded guilty to all charges at her first appearance, 2 May 2012, at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Following her resignation on 24 March 2011 Whitehouse repaid a total of £319,465.05

In August 2010 members of the middle management team became suspicious of invoices submitted by Stephen Newell, then Head of Information at the Royal Academy of Music. A complete audit was ordered and letters were sent to all the companies that RAM had dealings with, asking for confirmation of standard information. Only one company refused, Whitely Associates. It was not known at the time that one of the directors of this company was the defendant Whitehouse. Newell’s case currently awaits trial.

Whitehouse fabricated paperwork in the name of the Academy’s former principal, purporting to authorise increases to her pension fund totalling £100,000. A number of invoices from a company owned by her were also submitted for work that was entirely invented. Whitely Associates was paid over £100,000 for ‘restructuring and organisational advice’ and advice on the legal implications of awarding degrees, among other false services.

Charging decision in relation to allegations that a police officer passed confidential information to a journalist about Operation Weeting

Statement from Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions:

On the 2 April 2012 the Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service requesting charging advice in relation to two suspects. The first is a serving Metropolitan Police Officer in the Operation Weeting team whose name is not in the public domain. He is currently suspended. The second suspect is Amelia Hill, a journalist who writes for The Guardian newspaper.

The allegation is that the police officer passed confidential information about phone hacking cases to the journalist.

All the evidence has now carefully been considered and I have decided that neither the police officer nor the journalist should face a prosecution. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for my decision. It is important to bear in mind that the question I have addressed is whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Those are the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is not my function to make findings of fact and I have not done so. Both the police officer and Ms. Hill are entitled to be presumed innocent and that is the basis upon which I have approached this case.

In reaching my decision, I have applied the Interim Guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media, which were recently published by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The suspects have been considered separately, as different considerations arise in relation to each of them.

Between 4 April 2011 and 18 August 2011, Ms. Hill wrote ten articles which were published in The Guardian. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that these articles contained confidential information derived from Operation Weeting, including the names of those who had been arrested. I am also satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the police officer disclosed that information to Ms Hill.

I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence against either suspect to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for the common law offence of misconduct in a public office or conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.

In this case, there is no evidence that the police officer was paid any money for the information he provided.

Moreover, the information disclosed by the police officer, although confidential, was not highly sensitive. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. It did not compromise the investigation. And the information in question would probably have made it into the public domain by some other means, albeit at some later stage.

In those circumstances, I have concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction in the police officer’s case because his alleged conduct is not capable of reaching the high threshold necessary to make out the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. It follows that there is equally no realistic prospect of a conviction against Ms. Hill for aiding and abetting the police officer’s conduct.

However, the information disclosed was personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I am satisfied that there is arguably sufficient evidence to charge both the police officer and Ms. Hill with offences under section 55 of that Act, even when the available defences are taken into account.

I have therefore gone on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. There are finely balanced arguments tending both in favour of and against prosecution.

Journalists and those who interact with them have no special status under the law and thus the public interest factors have to be considered on a case by case basis in the same way as any other. However, in cases affecting the media, the DPP’s Interim Guidelines require prosecutors to consider whether the public interest served by the conduct in question outweighs the overall criminality alleged.

So far as Ms Hill is concerned, the public interest served by her alleged conduct was that she was working with other journalists on a series of articles which, taken together, were capable of disclosing the commission of criminal offences, were intended to hold others to account, including the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were capable of raising and contributing to an important matter of public debate, namely the nature and extent of the influence of the media. The alleged overall criminality is the breach of the Data Protection Act, but, as already noted, any damage caused by Ms. Hill’s alleged disclosure was minimal. In the circumstances, I have decided that in her case, the public interest outweighs the overall criminality alleged.

Different considerations apply to the police officer. As a serving police officer, any claim that there is a public interest in his alleged conduct carries considerably less weight than that of Ms Hill. However, there are other important factors tending against prosecution, including as already noted, the fact that no payment was sought or received, and that the disclosure did not compromise the investigation. Moreover, disclosing the identity of those who are arrested is not, of itself, a criminal offence. It is only unlawful in this case because the disclosure also breached the Data Protection Act.

In the circumstances, I have decided that a criminal prosecution is not needed against either Ms. Hill or the police officer.

However, in light of my conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting the police officer for an offence under the Data Protection Act, I have written to the Metropolitan Police Service and to the IPCC recommending that they consider bringing disciplinary proceedings against him.

Notes to editors: The DPP’s Interim Guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media can be found on the CPS website.

Former Met police specialist detective faces 13 charges of misconduct over rape & sexual offences investigations

Rosemary Fernandes, specialist lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“I have authorised the IPCC to summons Ryan Coleman Farrow, a former detective constable with the Metropolitan Police Service, specialising in rape and sexual assault cases, with 13 counts of misconduct in a public office.

“The charges relate to 13 separate allegations that between January 2007 and September 2010 Mr Coleman Farrow wilfully engaged in conduct amounting to an abuse of the public’s trust in a public office without reasonable excuse or justification. The 13 charges include allegations that Mr Coleman Farrow failed to perform his duty in investigating rape and sexual assault cases, falsified entries on the police’s Crime Report Information System and falsified records of CPS decisions which had never actually been referred to the CPS.

“The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. After very careful consideration of all the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.

“Mr Coleman Farrow will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 June 2012.

“Mr Coleman Farrow now faces criminal charges and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial.

“Proceedings are now active.”

Former Lloyds Banking Group head of digital banking fraud and security charged with defrauding her employer

Andrew Penhale, Deputy Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:

“We have authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Jessica Harper, the former head of fraud and security for digital banking at Lloyds Banking Group, with one count of fraud by abuse of position, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006.

“The charge relates to an allegation that between 1 September 2008 and 21 December 2011, Jessica Harper dishonestly and with the intention of making a gain for herself, abused her position as an employee of Lloyds Banking Group, in which she was expected to safeguard the financial interests of Lloyds Banking Group, by submitting false invoices to claim payments totalling £2,463,750.88, to which she was not entitled.

“This decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have determined that there is a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is in the public interest.

“She will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 31 May 2012.

“Jessica Harper now stands charged with a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."

CPS celebrates May’s ‘Successes of the Month’

The CPS is celebrating the outstanding work of teams and individuals up and down the country by publishing their stories on the CPS website.

In our 'Successes of the Month', we congratulate those colleagues who have gone beyond the call of duty or who have made a real contribution to their communities by working hard to see justice done.

This month, we feature the CPS East Midlands team which successfully countered a sleepwalking defence in order to convict a rapist, The CPS Thames and Chiltern lawyer who secured an important update to the country's most prominent legal textbook, the CPS West Midlands team which acted quickly to convict a gang member of manslaughter, and members of CPS staff who have been leading the drive towards a digital future for the Criminal Justice System.

You can read about May's 'Successes of the Month' here on the CPS website.

DPP welcomes guidance on metal theft as four convicted for stealing metal from railways

John Gowland and Dominic Wallis have today pleaded guilty to the theft of copper railway cabling in Warwickshire following the earlier guilty pleas of Flame Redshaw and John Brunozzi-Jones on 30 January 2012. Between August 2010 and March 2011, their criminality caused some 500 hours of delay and affected 58 train services.

These convictions follow the launch of Crown Prosecution guidance for lawyers on tackling metal theft, highlighting the significant and damaging impact it has on communities and industry.

Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“The impact of metal theft on the railway network can be particularly severe, with serious disruption to services and the threat to safety for all those who use, and work on, the rail network, not to mention the cost implications. In this case alone, the cost to Network Rail for repairs and compensation was £135,000.

“Metal theft is far from a victimless crime; it causes frustration and disruption to commuters and can be a real burden on taxpayers who are forced to fund, directly or indirectly, costly replacements, especially on the railway network. Not only does it cause problems for business and the railways, it indiscriminately targets homes, churches and memorials. I am determined my prosecutors take a firm stand on this issue and that is why we have issued guidance specifically to deal with this crime.”

The CPS guidance reminds prosecutors that whilst the scrap value of the metal concerned is sometimes negligible, the public harm it causes is widespread. Prosecutors will highlight the full facts of a case, actively obtaining information on the impact and effect of such thefts which may go far wider than the direct loss or damage caused, allowing the courts to sentence appropriately.

Mr Starmer said:

“Victims and witnesses of metal theft play a crucial role in helping us to prosecute and I urge them to report these crimes to the police as soon as possible. The sooner the police are able to act, the more likely it is that they will be able to gather the evidence we need to prosecute.”

Prosecutors are reminded of the range of charges available to them, including criminal damage, money laundering and handling stolen goods as well as theft. Prosecutors can also ask the court to consider deprivation and disqualification orders, denying thieves of their car or van where a vehicle and driving license is vital to the success of their criminal activity.

“When metal theft occurs, whether it is railway cables, lead from a village church roof or commemorative metal plaques honouring our war dead, we want to mount a robust prosecution of those responsible. A number of prosecutions resulting in tough custodial sentences, compensation and confiscation of vehicles have already been achieved. We are now building on this success, keeping up on the pressure on criminals who blight the lives of all those affected,” Mr Starmer added.

The CPS Theft Act Offences guidance can be read in full on the Legal Guidance section of the CPS website

Joint CPS and Met police statement into report on Operation Abelard II

Joint statment from Cressida Dick, Assistant Commissioner at the Metrolitan Police Service and Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London

The Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service have today, Monday 21 May, released their joint review commissioned in March 2011 following the withdrawal of the most recent trial into the murder of Daniel Morgan.

This case, as the trial judge said, was of an exceptional scale and complexity, with over three quarters of a million documents gathered over 20 years being examined. The issues around the disclosure exercise were such that we could not guarantee that all relevant material had been identified, considered and disclosed so as to ensure a fair trial. A further factor related to the unreliability of critical witnesses.

To this end, the purpose of the review was to identify potential good practice and learning for both police and prosecutors for future cases.

What the review was not was an investigation into allegations of corruption; nor was it intended to serve the purpose of an investigation for police disciplinary purposes.

Those recommendations identified within the review will now be implemented by both agencies.

You can see the report here

Former Finance Director of major supplier of potatoes to Sainsbury's convicted of corruption

Andrew Behagg, former Greenvale Finance Director, was today (May 16) found guilty of corruption at Croydon Crown Court.

Sue Patten, Head of the CPS Central Fraud Group said:

“This was corruption on a massive scale. The prosecution’s case was that as a result of this corruption, Greenvale was able to keep lucrative business for the supply of potatoes to Sainsbury’s, valued at £40 million per year, at the same time as overcharging them.

“Potato buyer John Maylam was showered with excessive gifts and hospitality including stays at Claridges, costing a total of £200,000 and a luxury 12 day excursion to the Monaco Grand Prix in 2007, at a cost to Greenvale of around £350,000. Maylam also received lump sum payments, via an account in Luxembourg, to the tune of £1.5 million, supposedly for the storage of potatoes in Spain and other bogus activities

“In return for these criminal payments, Greenvale employees David Baxter and Andrew Behagg were able to collude with Maylam in overcharging Sainsbury to the tune of £8.7million.

“Today’s message is clear: there is no place for corruption in British business. It attacks fair competitive practices and undermines our international reputation. This case demonstrates a clear distinction between reasonable business hospitality and that which is criminally corrupt.”

Background Information:

David Baxter was the accounts manager at Greenvale and pleaded guilty to corruption and money laundering on 24 June 2011.

John Maylam, the Sainsbury’s potato buyer, pleaded guilty to corruption and money laundering on 2 September 2011.

Greenvale supplied approximately 45% of Sainsbury’s potatoes in 2008 at a cost in the region of £40 million per year.

Greenvale, on discovering the corrupt practice, reported the matter which has led to this conviction.

All three expected to be sentenced on 22 June.

Charging announcement in relation to Rebekah Brooks and others

Alison Levitt, QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions oversees CPS decision making, and all potential prosecutions, in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters. Miss Levitt said:

“This statement is made in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in respect of allegations that Rebekah Brooks conspired with her husband, Charles Brooks and others to pervert the course of justice.

The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service on 27th March 2012 in relation to seven suspects:

Rebekah Brooks;

Charles Brooks;

Cheryl Carter - Mrs Brooks’ personal assistant;

Mark Hanna - Head of Security at News International;

Paul Edwards - Mrs Brooks’ chauffeur who was employed by News International;

Daryl Jorsling and a seventh suspect - both of whom provided security for Mrs Brooks supplied by News International.

All the evidence has now carefully been considered.

Applying the two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors I have concluded that in relation to all suspects except the seventh, there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. I then considered the second stage of the test, and I have concluded that a prosecution is required in the public interest in relation to each of the other six.

All seven suspects have this morning been informed of my decisions. They are all due to answer their bail at police stations later today. When they do so, they will be charged as follows:

CHARGE 1 – CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Rebekah Brooks between 6th July and 19th July 2011 conspired with Charles Brooks, Cheryl Carter, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards, Daryl Jorsling and persons unknown to conceal material from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service

CHARGE 2 - CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Rebekah Brooks and Cheryl Carter between 6th July and 9th July 2011 conspired together permanently to remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International.

CHARGE 3 – CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

Rebekah Brooks, Charles Brooks, Mark Hanna, Paul Edwards and Daryl Jorsling conspired together and with persons unknown, between 15th July and 19th July 2011, to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from officers of the Metropolitan Police Service.

All these matters relate to the ongoing police investigation into allegations of phone hacking and corruption of public officials in relation to the News of the World and The Sun newspapers.

Following charge, these individuals will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court on a date to be determined.

No further action will be taken against the seventh suspect.

May I remind all concerned that these six individuals now will be charged with criminal offences and that each has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."

Police officers fined for assaulting man in custody

Gerry Sydenham, Head of the Crown Court Unit at CPS North East, said:

“Every serving police officer has a commitment to ensuring the welfare of members of the public, including those brought into custody. As such, there are clear, stringent guidelines governing exactly how and when people are to be restrained and the level of force appropriate to this.

“The overwhelming majority of police officers operate in strict accordance with these guidelines, often despite challenging circumstances, and as a result cases of this nature are incredibly rare.

“In this case, however, the use of force was both unnecessary and unlawful and the actions of the officers amounted to assaults upon the victim Mr Healer, making a prosecution wholly appropriate.”

Two serving officers from Durham Constabulary were today fined a total of £750 and ordered to pay costs totalling £1300 at Teesside Magistrates Court, after being found guilty of assaulting a man in custody.

Sgt Stephen Harvey and DO Michael Mount were each found guilty of two counts of assault against their victim, David Healer, while he was detained at Peterlee Police Station in March of last year. Sgt Harvey was ordered to pay a fine of £450 and £900 costs and DO Mount a £350 fine and £400 costs.

The case was brought by the Crown Prosecution Service after an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Charging announcement regarding The Spectator magazine

CPS London Chief Crown Prosecutor Alison Saunders said:

“The Crown Prosecution Service has today (9 May 2011) informed the publishers of The Spectator magazine of our decision to charge them with an offence under Section 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in relation to an article by Rod Liddle about the recent Stephen Lawrence trial.

“On 24 November 2011 the Attorney General referred an article published in The Spectator magazine to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of whether a reporting restrictions Order in place at the time had been breached.

“The article in question was dated 19 November 2011 and came during the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris who were accused, and subsequently convicted, of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Judge, Mr Justice Treacy referred the article to the Attorney General for consideration under his contempt powers.

“Due to the intense media interest in this case an Order under Section 82 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 prohibiting publication of certain assertions about the defendants was in place. This Order was imposed by the Court of Appeal on 18 May 2011 and was continued at the commencement of the trial on 14 November 2011.

“Having applied the full code test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors I have taken the decision that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The Attorney General has determined that it is in the public interest to proceed and he has given his consent to this prosecution.

“Where a charge is brought under Section 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the publication is a newspaper or periodical, the proprietor, editor or publisher may be liable for the offence, and not the author.

“Accordingly a summons against the publisher of the magazine, The Spectator (1828) Ltd has been obtained from City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and the first hearing will be on 7 June 2012.”

Additional Information

The details of the charge are:

Offence: On 16/11/2012 being the publisher of newspaper or periodical publishing matter contravening an order made under section 82 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Particulars: on 16/11/2011 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, when an order made at the Court of Appeal Criminal Decision on 18 May 2011 under Section 82, Criminal Justice Act 2003 had effect, The Spectator (1828) Ltd, as publishers of The Spectator included in The Spectator an article by Mr. Rod Liddle in contravention of that Order.

Contrary to Sections 83(1) & (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

PC Harrington faces ABH charge

Alison Saunders, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:

“In February this year the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to charge PC Joseph Harrington in relation to an alleged assault on a young man in custody in August 2011.

“The incident was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, with CPS involvement beginning in November 2011. The IPCC gave summaries of interviews to the CPS in February, and in the same month the CPS decided that there was no realistic prospect of conviction in the matter.

“Grace Ononiwu, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, directed in April that there should be a new review of this case after concerns were raised with CPS London.

“That review is now complete and I have decided that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction to charge PC Harrington with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

“Occasionally, a new look at a prosecution decision shows that the wrong view of the evidence was taken. That is regrettable. In this case, the conclusion originally reached was not tenable on the available evidence.

“When a review shows a previous decision not to prosecute is clearly wrong, it is open to the CPS to rectify that error by reconsidering the prosecution decision at Chief Crown Prosecutor level.

"As Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, I have taken the decision in this case that not only is there sufficient evidence to provide for a realistic prospect of conviction, and that a prosecution is required in the public interest, but that a prosecution is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. That is the test I must apply under the Code for Crown Prosecutors when reinstituting a prosecution. It is clear that the allegation of using excessive force on a handcuffed 15 year old in custody is a serious matter.

“Accordingly I have advised the IPCC to summons PC Harrington.

“I hope the seriousness with which the CPS has taken this matter gives the public confidence that we are an organisation which will review our decisions, openly accept when we’ve got them wrong and then take the correct course of action.

“All parties have now been informed. Can I please remind all concerned that PC Harrington is to be prosecuted for a criminal offence and has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice his trial. Proceedings are now active.”

CPS Statement on Michael Brown

Andrew Penhale from the CPS Central Fraud Group said:

“The CPS is pleased to have secured the extradition of Michael Brown from Spain, who was arrested in Madrid on Saturday 21 April, following the issuing of a European Arrest Warrant. After nearly four years of evading justice, Michael Brown has been informed of the seven year sentence imposed in his absence, after he absconded part way through his trial at Southwark Crown Court in 2008.

"We would like to thank the City of London Police, SOCA and the Foreign Office for their assistance in bringing Brown back to the UK.”

Background

Brown was convicted in absentia in November 2008 of the following offences:

Theft of US$7,200,000
Theft of US$1,291,809
Furnishing False Information
Perverting the Courts of Public Justice

He was sentenced in May 2009 as follows:

Theft of US$7,200,000 – 6 Years’ Imprisonment
Theft of US$1,291,809 – 6 Years’ Imprisonment
Furnishing False Information – 6 Years’ Imprisonment
Perverting the Course of Public Justice – 12 Months’ Imprisonment.

All of the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently to each other save for the last one which was ordered to be served consecutively to the other three, making a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.