We have been asked to assist in a very worrying case, one which I think is shocking and which should be a warning to everyone.
A sole practitioner accountant was arrested and accused of fraud based upon the allegations of a disgruntled ex client. It could happen to anyone.
His computer was seized as was his external hard drive containing his back up files. We have examined the official transcript of his interview by the police and, in an 80 minute interview he made 83 references to “The records on my computer will prove that to be untrue” or similar comments referring to proof being on his computer.
Two week later the police claimed that the hard drive on his computer was blank and could not be read. They supplied a report from an independent computer expert stating that the hard drive was blank and did not even contain an operating system.
It took them a year to return the computer and, as claimed, the hard drive was indeed blank, and, according to an independent expert, appeared to have been degaussed. The accused had no warning that police were going to turn up and seize his computer. Further, his service provider has confirmed that their records show that he was online at midnight the previous night (he was arrested at 7.30am whilst still in bed).
The police allege it was blank when they seized it.
They also claim that the external back up drive has been “lost”.
However, about a week after the arrest they wrote a letter to the accountant in which they state that his computer hard drive is “divided into 3 logical drives”.
As hard drive partitions are a software function I cannot see how they could write this or know this if, as they now claim, the hard drive was blank and could not be read when they seized it. Hard drives can be set to contain any number of partitions, and most new computers are set up from new with 2 logical drives, drive one containing the operating system and data files, and drive two containing a copy of the operating system for restoring purposes.
The only conclusion we can draw is that the police were told the content of the computer proved him innocent, so deliberately destroyed it and “conveniently” made the external back up drive disappear.
This is a very serious matter and suggests that his evidence has been deliberately destroyed by the police, a very serious matter.
We have been asked to reconstruct the accounts of the client in question, but, without the accused’s working papers (on his computer) we have no way of knowing if we are actually being supplied with the same records that he had from the client (it is a predominantly cash business with maybe 5% of turnover going through the bank).
My inclination is to make this point and demand access to his computer records, or, an explanation why we cannot access them bearing in mind that the evidence very clearly shows that the police have deliberately destroyed the evidence.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we should deal with what seems to us to be a blatant case police corruption?
EDIT.
For obvious reasons we must remain anonymous, which prevents posting in direct response to comments. However, we see that 3 people have all suggested that the facts laid out are not the triuth, or "made up". That suggestion is insulting and refuted. We have in our possesion the letter stating the computer is blank. We also have the letter from police stating how many logical drives it consists of (which contradicts the claim it was blank when seized). The4 3 responses suggesting this to be untrue are unhelpful, unprofessional, and unwanted.
Replies (17)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Because to date they have been under represented in crime fiction, solicitors and bankers on a regular basis get involved in nefarious schemes full of excitement and intrigue, accountants rarely get such thrills.
When one goes home at night and one's daughter asks what was the highlight of the day, and the best answer to be offered is , "someone else made the tea today" it is plain to see the profession lacks a certain je ne ca quoi.
So more plots and skulduggery are needed.
Something like the introduction of the security services would liven things up, maybe the accountant's computer had been used by unknown parties for clandestine purposes so needed scrubbed etc.
So tune in for tomorrow's exciting episode of......
You have evidence that the hard drive is now completely blank and that at an earlier stage the police said the hard drive was divided into three logical drives.
You also have evidence that the external backup drive cannot now be found.
But, in my view at least, you do not have evidence of police corruption or of the deliberate destruction of evidence by the police.
I would suggest you put thoughts of police malpractice out of your mind & focus instead on the task which you have been instructed to complete.
You do not say if the accountant has been formally charged & if so the particulars of the offence. If it involves handling money then there will presumably be duplicate bank statements etc obtainable which may throw some light on the alleged criminal conduct by the accountant. That may be the best place to start your work.
Good luck!
David
As David pretty much states, stop trying to be the solicitor that's trying to 'solve' this case. Stick to your field of expertise of a forensic accountant and reconstruct whatever you can from the information supplied or information that you're able to gather. If you don't then you're going to get ripped apart by any decent barrister or prosecution financial investigator.
I hope that an IT expert will be providing a report regarding your comments above, not you, as an accountant.
I can only echo the comments that have already been made to the effect that you should stick to your job and not try to get involved in matters that are none of your business. If you try to do the job of the defendant's solicitor and barrister, not to mention that of the judge and jury as well, you will be cut to pieces.
[***] up rather than conspiracy is a much more likely explanation unless there is very much more to this story than meets the eye.
Seriously - does anyone believe that story, which is pretty much identical to one posted a couple of years ago. The reason for anonymity is indeed obvious - though the poster is not as anonymous as he thinks.
Its a lousy TV script.
Back in the real world, you would simply do the work again that proved his innocence, but presumably they would be a dull ending.
How about the accountant (mid 40's) was have a gay affair with the arresting officers teenage son/daughter as motive for 'wiping' the computer and sending them to jail for a crime they did not commit?
The OP's experience of police investigation of fraud is very different to mine.
Over a year ago, I discovered that someone had set up a fake auditor that was deliberately similar to me and my firm. The fake auditor's report appeared in what were clearly false accounts, used to order goods on credit. Victims of the fraud contacted me, as they assumed my involvement. One even made a professional complaint to ACCA, which was swiftly dropped when they were satisfied that I was not involved.
My research uncovered a number of companies being used in the fraud, with losses amounting to at least several hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions.
I reported this numerous times to the police via ActionFraud, letter and e-mail, plus SAR reports.
But virtually no response. The feedback from victims was also the same.
I got the impression that the police often don't really understand fraud or have the resources to deal with it.
That is probably because, Locutus, your experience is real. Rather than the fabricated nonsense above.
Surely the OP's solicitor
can demand that the information supplied by the client to the accounant or the police is produced by him and from that reconstruct the records. If he cannot produce the information any criminal case will collapse
I think the most worrying comment here is 'we have no way of knowing if we are actually being supplied with the same records that he had from the client'. Best ask the client for both sets of books then!
It should be a simple exercise to re-prepare the accounts from the basic records. Why do you need to get involved in the case against the accountant, it is not your remit.
Why would you care about the previous accountant, he maybe as guilty as sin or completely innocent. Leave it to his defence counsel.
Re Police corruption, I always work on the basis that if I am not sure whether it is a conspiracy or a cockup, then it is a cockup!