A dishonest estate agent who stole money from her employer for has been jailed for 30 months.
Gemma Wall pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud, one involving Bagshaws, the estate agency she worked for in Uttoexter, Staffordshire, and the other a parent teachers’ association (PTA) at a local school.
Stafford Crown Court was told that she fraudulently obtained £102,484.76 in total, although the total sum she diverted through her accounts was £274,952.61.
The 41-year-old had pleaded guilty to the charges at an earlier hearing at Stafford Crown Court and was appearing to be sentenced for her crimes.
She admitted fraud by abuse of position while occupying a position as an employee at Bagshaws, in which she was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of the estate agency, and she dishonestly abused that position intending thereby to make a gain, namely for herself between 19 January 2017, and 7 June 2019.
Wall also abused her position while she was treasurer of the PTA of the Friends of St Joseph’s, once again making a gain, namely, for herself between 15 January 2014, and 12 December 2016.
Christine Baggott, a Partner at Bagshaws, told the press: “She committed a complex fraud and now there has been a good outcome and she has been punished as a consequence of what she did.”
30 months – yet last week on these pages we read about a crook who got 250 hours picking up litter and a suspended sentence for the same offence.
Whether it’s one quid or a million – stealing is stealing. This thief got her just rewards.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
A complex fraud is always defeated by simple procedures designed to indentify wrong doing.
I have been warning and pleading that when stories of apparent wrong going are published a note of the software used always accompanies the story.
As demonstrated by the postoffice cases where innocent post office staff have been accused and jailed because software was as fault, software is not infallible and there needs to be process in place to detect software fault and human fraud.
Ringing up software support to get out of balance systems Zapped and reset is not a safe solution
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Not sure I understand the logic of disclosing software; it is the person and not the software that caused the fraud, rather than in the Post Office’s case, it was the software and not the person that created an apparent fraud.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I have dealt with more client cash account anomalies than most people, I know people who have taken their own life because they have not been able to resolve discrepancies with a client cash accounts. I have had to investigate and point the finger of blame at trusted members of staff ( and business partners) who were behind complex frauds (that weren’t complex at all)
the difference between a system that accounts to 6 significant figures compared to 4 significant figures can be many £millions.
Very often it is the software and the way the software is operated that allows fraud to exist so identifying the software, stops problems with systems being repeatedly swept under the carpet.
I built the CCA first system to be ICAEW accredited, it accounted to 6sf not 4 or 2. When operated as trained complex fraud was not possible. when operated outside sensible CCA SOP fraud was possible.
All I can do is identify the exposure to risk and suggest what should be done to prevent frauds but until the industry listens cases like this will continue to happen
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Thanks for taking the time Robert to qualify your point.
It seems to me that the fraud we hear about on this platform tends to be small agencies, so likely reflects a more simplified accounting software. In these situations, the fraudsters/employees are likely encouraged to do such fraud knowing there is a lax approach by management/owners to undertake regular auditing. Basically the trust bar is set way too high.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
8 in 10 agencies large and small who saw my software bought it, all were trained the same. We didn’t win all orders on day 1, first time round, some we lost to cheaper suppliers who had flawed software, 2 VAT quarters on when things were really in a mess but before they got out of control was a sweet spot.
The reality is a lot CCA systems sold to agents are junk, unfit for purpose, the training inevitably is the same low standard and that’s the recipe for both fraud and Computer aided lost of monies. Some business owners and their staff do not stand a chance of getting it right because the software they’ve bought isn’t up to the job.
Highlighting the software every time would let the pattern emerge.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
As I say every time these types of reports come up in the press, “where was the management?”
Daily bank reconcilliations, a daily check of bank accounts? If management are that far out of touch with their own business then they deserve everything that they get in my opinion.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register