CPS News Brief

Family of five sentenced for tax evasion & benefit fraud

Five members of the Coffey family were today sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on a range of charges including cheating the public revenue and making false statements for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining thousands of pounds in public money through the benefit system.

Andrew Biker of the CPS Central Fraud Division said:

“No income was ever declared by John Coffey to the Inland Revenue despite him working all his life in the tarmac and block paving industries. Even more money was made buying and selling cars and trading horses.

“The sheer number of bank accounts operated by the family and their ability to transfer significant funds between them fly in the face of their claims of illiteracy and ignorance of matters such as Income Tax. They were able to pass almost £2 million through the accounts by using false names and documents. Indeed, in one fraudulent house transfer, John Coffey hired two sets of solicitors and calmly acted the parts of both seller and purchaser simultaneously in order to transfer property around the family in different names to muddy the waters as to who owned what.

“In another brazen act of fraud, Bridget Coffey claimed over £9,000 in housing & council tax benefit from Cardiff County Council by stating that her husband was her landlord. In turn, her daughters claimed more than £70,000 in payments from the Department for Work and Pensions and Stroud District Council with false statements and documents from their father.

“No matter how you earn money, paying tax matters. But denying the honest British public of their contribution to tax was not enough for the Coffeys who went further by setting out to take funds set aside for those who most need them. People can rest assured that the CPS will do all it can to deprive these criminals of their assets and put the money back where it belongs – into the public purse.”

The defendants were father John, mother Bridget, son Michael and daughters Helen & Mary. They were sentenced as follows:

• John – 2 years 9 months, compensation £450,000 costs £9,645 plus all his defence costs
• Michael – 12 months suspended for 2 years, unpaid work of 200 hours, £50,000 compensation, costs £9,645 plus defence costs
• Bridget – 12 months suspended for 18 months, 100 hors unpaid work
• Helen – 6 months suspended for 18 months, 200 hours unpaid work
• Mary – 12 months suspended 18 months, 200 hours unpaid work

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.