Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#1
Stephen Kellaway, 54, scammed £43,622 in housing and council tax benefits on a string of London properties - despite having nearly £280,000 stashed in various undeclared bank accounts.
Croydon Crown Court heard the former psychologist claimed he was a single parent on income support and created false tenants to claim the benefit from councils in Hammersmith and Fulham, and Richmond in west London.
This was a cynical and selfish plan, and a crime of abject dishonesty.
But investigators began looking into his affairs in 2008, suspicious of the large amounts being claimed.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
they always get caught in the end, modern technology cross references information.
i read this week that p.j.proby(remember him?) got caught and prosecuted
under his real name of jim smith.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#3
Howard.
But investigators began looking into his affairs in 2008, suspicious of the large amounts being claimed.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#5
Tom.
Also.
"despite having nearly £280,000 stashed in various undeclared bank accounts"
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#6
He has to pay back £55,000, but what about the 'tools' he used to burgle the benefits system, his properties?
P.S.
Yes Gary, but the bust was to be on public show so public money was needed to pay for it?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#7
Tom.
He broke the law in 2008, far more than £55.000 has been spent on this conclusion.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
What are the limits on what can be recovered under the proceeds of crime act, I do not know? Glad this thief has been jailed even though the 32 months (no doubt with remission) was not long enough.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
i thought that they could recoup the lot plus any costs, good point about it being 2008 until now to actually prosecute.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#10
Ah, best not to go there Barry...they are bound to include recovery of property purchased from any ill-gotten deeds.
T'would leave the grieving wife-let rather deflated.
I wonder what exotic locations her postcards to him will come from?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
Yes Howard - so if he stole, what £43k and can get back £55k I presume that includes a punitive sum and some interest too, perhaps some costs. I am assuming that the point of this concerns whether he was adequately punished and enough of his assets seized back to compensate for his thievery? Or have I got it wrong?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#13
There are two issues here.
One, is the benefit fraud itself, that I am sure we will all agree, is wrong.
Personally I think he should pay all the money back and instead of going to prison (that would cost the tax payer) he should be made to work for free in the community.
The other is how he was allowed to get away with it?
He had a string of properties-with the paper trail and today's technology how was this not detected earlier?
"Having nearly £280,000 stashed in various undeclared bank accounts" this should not be allowed to happen.
The councils involved should be held accountable for allowing this to happen, somebody did not do their job properly, and if these mistakes (loopholes) were not in place, then they could not be abused.
Investigators have been employed since 2008, I know they have to be certain but that is ridiculous. The cost of this investigation must have far exceeded £55.000. If the initial claim had been properly assessed he would not have been able to get away with this crime.
How many more are getting away with it?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
I understand what you are saying and you make some good points. The answers, I have no idea!
Guest 657- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,037
#15
I worked as a Benefit Fraud investigator for several years. Technology improved massively, communication between Government Departments didn't. Certain departments are well known for not talking to the DSS/Job Centre (I won't name names) as they thought we were 'irrelevant' in the great scheme of things. A large investigation taking 3 or 4 years was quite normal back in my day (2001 - 2005) and it doesn't appear to have changed. The length of time it takes not only other Government Departments to respond to our questions but people like Housing Benefit, banks and Post Offices is unbelievable.
If he had sufficient documentation to back up his initial claim then it probably wouldn't have been checked beyond the usual. Lack of staff and busy offices often meant that things were not re-checked at a later date when they should have been. Somewhere along the line a red flag must have been raised and he would have been monitored but as I know from bitter experience, bigger and more important cases come along and things get pushed back.
I am so glad to be out of it all now!