Replies (23)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Has the firm, their insurers or the ICAEW (if they are the governing body), repaid the stolen money to the clients?
Press reports indicate the losses were covered by insurance.
Also the convicted defendant will be subject to confiscation proceedings under Part 2 PoCA 2002.
David
Confiscation proceedings against a man with a £1k a day gambling habit?
I'll not be holding my breath.
Confiscation proceedings against a man with a £1k a day gambling habit?
I'll not be holding my breath.
According to press reports there is "The detached, family home with its large driveway and pot plants". So there may be equity in that.
David
Yes indeed. I expect he will also have a bash in the traditional manner when he gets out.
As an accountant, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that per the information given, the amounts stolen are only sufficient to fuel a £104.29 a day gambling habit.
According to press reports he admitted to more thefts than there was evidence available to prove. He was only convicted of the thefts proved.
But I think the suggestion is that, on some days, he gambled up to £1,000. Fair point!
Some of the bests must surely have won which would somewhat improve the daily stake available.
I've been brought in as an external party on a number of fraud cases over the years, and every single one was to fund a gambling addiction.
This reminds me of the infamous Grays case where the misappropriated funds were, I think, reported to have been spent primarily on "women and racing"!
In the only fraud I ever encountered in practice, the benefits fraudulently obtained were used to fund a daughter's drug habit. I imagine drugs must be another common driver.
Why would he request a £4,500 loan from a client? Was the money going to be used for himself, as it would be if he had taken out a loan from a bank? If so, why not do it that way instead? I'm quite confused. Can anyone explain?
He most likely has a very bad credit. By the time a professional (with a lot to lose) resorts to stealing, they've exhausted all other options.
But the question is.
If he diverted funds from the client's to his wife's bank account, then surely the amount were still outstanding or due to HMRC. Would this not have been picked up a little down the line by basic credit controls?
It does not add up.
I did have a case years ago in which a dishonest accountant simply told clients "You owe tax of £xx, give me a cheque for that & I will pay it" - and they did. (The tax they actually owed was much less and he kept the difference.)
David
I think it sounds like the cheques were payable for accountancy fees to LB. He probably just popped a credit note on their account, or simply printed an invoice but never posted to the ledgers in the first place and just took the whole payment. So it looks like the partners were down quite a bit each.
Looks like his departmental code invoice analysis wasnt checked against the order book of the portfolio of recurring fees he controlled.
If your thoughts are anything to go by, the firm must have been making too much money to notice.
It is the usual suspects : Gambling and Drugs
With the government sucking up to online gambling companies as well as considering legalising some drugs, expect fraud to become widespread in our society.
Surprising how many cases like this spring up.
Back in the late 90's I had a sting working for a guy. The police turned up one day looking for him; it transpired he had been dealing with a tax investigation and had been advising the client to make 'in good faith' payments on account to HMRC. He told the client to make the cheques out to himself / his firm, as he paid all tax liabilities for all clients in one go each week from his firm's account.
The client seemingly didn't bat an eyelid at this and kept writing the cheques.
This had been going on for 2 years. It was only 2 years later that it transpired that HMRC had not received any payments.
He served 18 months. Still knocking about now.
Guarded responses so far...
"There but for the grace of God" comes to mind. In common with many colleagues, I'm a bit obsessive/compulsive, which makes me good at my job, but also addiction-prone. I'm not a gambler, but could see myself getting into trouble if I started. I'm not trying to excuse Mr. Bash's behavior, but can see how it might unfold.
So , waster Bash paid the cheques into his / his wife's joint bank account . He then proceeded to withdraw the money immediately..........to avoid any suspicion from his wife........... It beggars belief..
No doubt, after serving probably 15 months of his 3 year sentence , Bash will advise his wife to pay more attention to their joint bank account.
Mr Bash may have caused himself and his wife an extra difficulty by depositing the money in a JOINT bank account first. It could be argued that by those deposits he made 'tainted gifts' to his wife. If so, on confiscation, not only his assets but those of his wife would be "realisable property" for confiscation purposes.
So if, for example, his wife owns half of the matrimonial home the WHOLE of the equity in it could be at risk to pay off a confiscation order.
David