Enfield Trading Standards: Sammons money laundering In this feature bogus builder fraud deterrent A family affair The family that launders together gets prosecuted together as George Moraitis, part of the team that successfully prosecuted three fraudsters for money laundering, explains I n January 2014, Enfield Trading Standards received a complaint from an elderly widower who had been defrauded of 58,000 in an elaborate doorstep con. By that time, the fraudsters were long gone, leaving only an unregistered pay-as-you-go mobile and various false names in their wake. However, their greed couched in an instruction to the victim to pay an additional 52,000 into a bank account led to three sentences for money laundering in June 2016. Immediate payment Between 22 and 26 January 2014, the victim an 80-year-old who lived alone was visited by a man claiming to be from Murphys building firm. The builder told the victim his front garden wall was in a poor stateof repair and that there seemed to be a blockage on the water mains. He wanted to excavate near the wall and was concerned that it could topple over. The builder said he was unable to do the work himself, but took the victims telephone number so that a reputable builder could make contact. Almost immediately, a Steve Asper, of A1 Brickwork, called. Asper persuaded the victim to pay 4,500 to rebuild the front wall, and said he would need an immediate payment of 2,500 to cover the cost ofmaterials. Over the next four days, the victim paid out 6,000 in cash to workmen. He then received a call from a man purporting to be a senior bank official, who claimed he was phoning to check the transaction was legitimate, and who complemented A1 Brickwork, reassuring the victim that everything was OK. TAP TO NAVIGATE PAGES 1 Credits George Moraitis is a senior fair trading 2 3 4 To share this page, in the toolbar click on 5 6 You might also like Successful enterprise June 2016 officer in Enfield Council. Images: Adam Gilchrist / kirill_makarov / Shutterstock A surveyor then visited the victim and warned that his home had damp and needed an expensive injection of silicone damp-proof treatment. He also said that drainage channels needed to be dug to stop a build-up of surface water. Different accounts On 24 January 2014, a payment of 52,000 was made by bank transfer to an account held in the name of JM OREILLY. Again a senior bank official a Mr Carlton called the victim to check the transaction was legitimate. Having already received 52,000, the fraudsters rather brazenly told him the payment had not gone through and he would need to transfer another 52,000, to a different account! At this point, the victim realised he had been defrauded and refused to make any further payments. Bank enquiries showed that the payment was sent to an account held by Jack Max OReilly. Almost as soon the money came into his hands, OReilly moved it on, withdrawing 300 in cash and transferring 2,491 to a second account. The following day, OReilly transferred 25,000 to an account held by Eileen Sinead Sammon, and 24,200 to an account held by Pauline Sammon. Between them, Pauline and Eileen withdrew 17,000 in cash over two days before their bank accounts were frozen. An expert confirmed that the claims made by the surveyor about damp were nonsense. The only work that had been done to rebuild the front wall was valued at 1,800, a far cry from the 6,000 quoted. We had enough evidence to lay charges under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, but what we were really interested in were the roles played by OReilly and the Sammons, and discovering the extent of their involvement in the underlying fraud. The opportunity to find this out soon presented itself. Pauline and Eileen contacted us wanting their bank accounts unfrozen; evidently, being unable to use their bank accounts was causing them problems. We invited them and OReilly to attend for interview, and to make lifeeasier for all three we offered to interview them in their home town of Manchester. Neither of the Sammons turned up; OReilly did, however, and he provided a colourful explanation straight out of a Dickens novel. He explained that he was in trouble with the law probably the only honest thing he said and was required to live in London as a condition of his bail. He was broke and desperate for work when he met a man in a pub by the name of Paddy Quinn. Quinn was apparently a successful builder with money to spare. Quinn asked OReilly if he could use his bank account to receive payment for a job. OReilly thought there was nothing odd or even suspicious about this request and readily agreed. He claimed that he was hoping to find work with Quinn and wanted him on his side. When 52,000 arrived in his bank account, OReilly claims he did become suspicious. However, despite this, he withdrew 2,000 in cash and met with Quinn to give him the money at which point, he claims, Quinn got physical. Rather than get the police involved, he turned to his friend, Christopher Sammon son of Pauline and brother of Eileen Sammon for advice. Christopher advised him to get rid of the money and suggested he transfer approximately half to his mother and the other half to his sister, so that they could buy caravans to stay in. Pre-trial hearing An officers report was prepared and charges were laid for money laundering offences against OReilly, and Pauline and Eileen Sammon. OReilly was charged with five offences contrary to sections 327 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and two charges were laid against each of the Sammons one for entering into arrangements, the other for converting criminal property. On 23 July 2014, all three attended a pre-trial hearing, with OReilly entering guilty pleas to three charges. Pauline Sammons defence statement placed her son, Christopher, in the firing line. Pauline said that she had no reason to suspect the provenance of the funds; she wasreceiving a sum of money that was payment for work her son did while in London. Paulines statement suggested two lines of enquiry: that Christopher was the brains behind the fraud carried out in January 2014, or that Christopher was involved in the laundering perhaps as a final layer, separating the fraudsters from the money. We invited Christopher Sammon to attend for interview. We doubted he would as, by doing so, he would either confirm his mothers defence and place himself in the firing line for fraud charges, or contradict his mothers account and, effectively, demolish her defence. Like Odysseus, we envisioned him sailing between the Scylla and the Charybdis for his very survival but, lacking Odysseus wits, he attended for interview and presented an account that was completely unconvincing. Christopher Sammon denied that he had worked as a builder, or been employed in the building trade. He said that the money that had passed from OReilly to Pauline and Eileen Sammon was intended for him and represented a loan of 49,000, which he intended to use to buy a caravan. He explained that he was living in south London, was unemployed and on remand for blackmail and kidnapping charges andneeded somewhere to live hence the desire to purchase a caravan. He confirmed that he had received 9,600 in cash from Pauline Sammon and 5,000 from his sister, Eileen Sammon. Christopher confirmed that he had spent the money on living expenses. He said he had no bank account and needed his mother and sister to receive the money for him. When asked how OReilly had acquired such a considerable sum, Christopher said that it was none of his business besides which, he had always known OReilly as a man of means, a successful and wealthy businessman, who drove luxury cars and wore a Rolex watch. When asked whose idea it was to split the money between Pauline and Eileen, Christopher said it had been OReillys, and he did not ask why he had chosen to transfer the money in this fashion. We were not convinced. In February 2016, summonses were laid. When Christopher failed to attend court, a warrant for his arrest was issued and he turned himself in. When the trial began on 6 June, Christopher and Eileen took the stand, but their mother declined to do so. Eileen gave evidence that she had allowed her brother to use her bank account to receive payments. She said these were usually in the region of a few hundred pounds and she was taken aback when she saw 25,000 in there. Nonetheless, she withdrew 5,000 in cash and would have withdrawn the remaining 20,000 if her bank had allowed it. She seemed quite nonchalant at the prospect of having 25,000 in cash on her. Christopher took the stand and proceeded to contradict the account he gave at interview. Our barrister, Andrew Johnson, put those contradictions to him. Christopher said they were a slip of the tongue. He added that he was telling the truth in court as he had sworn on theBible. Christopher added that he had never told his mother or sister where the money had come from, or even how much would be going into their accounts: I dont answer to my mother, he stated flatly. I dont answer to anyone. These words came back to haunt him when the judge directed the jury that Christopher did answer to someone them. Deterrent message The jury returned guilty verdicts against Christopher and Eileen Sammon, but acquitted Pauline. On 30 June 2016, the judge sentenced Christopher Sammon to four years imprisonment; OReilly received 10 months imprisonment, which included a full, one-third discount for submitting an early plea; Eileen Sammon, whom the judge considered had played a minor role, was sentenced to 180 hours community service. It is rare to walk away from a lengthy investigation and trial with a sentence that sends out such an effective deterrent message. It is often easy to overlook those who assist doorstep criminals by allowing the use of their bank account, but these people are as culpable as the fraudsters they facilitate fraud and conceal the culprits, and for that they should be brought to account.