A fraudster who got more than £4,000 in benefits has been given a community order. Daniella Flanaghan, 25, of Exeter Place, Savick, received a two-year community order and 80 hours' unpaid work. She was also ordered to pay £500 costs by Preston magistrates.These next two were clearly deliberate and pre-meditated.
... She had worked for nine different periods between 2003 and 2007, while claiming £3,134 in benefits. After being interviewed under caution, Flanaghan again worked while claiming and failed to declare this, bringing the total amount she had falsely claimed to £4,239.
A single mum claimed more than £12,000 in benefits – despite having thousands in the bank.Not only was this dishonesty pre-meditated, but the flow of money in and out suggests there may have been more going on than we are told.
Dawn Hassen ... admitted seven charges of dishonestly ... between 2001 and 2004.
After a tip-off, the DWP discovered she had three main bank accounts with "significant savings".
The court heard one account held between £2,000 and £5,000, a second account with the same bank held £2,000, and a third showed a balance of up to £9,000. ... She now works as a senior carer and is paying the money back.
The court heard she may have been entitled to some of the payments she received when her bank balances were at their lowest.
Mr Recorder Ekins sentenced her to a community order for 12 months, with 100 hours of unpaid work.
The third case today also showed cold, deliberate dishonesty.
Janet Parks, of ... Bridlington, dishonestly claimed more than £3,500 in housing benefit, Council Tax benefit and Jobseekers’ Allowance.Deliberate benefit fraudsters deliberately choose to steal from taxpayers. These thieves should be punished more harshly.
... She was given a 12-month order of conditional discharge and ordered to pay £80 towards costs.
Parks will also have to pay back the £3,687 in benefits she fraudulently claimed between November 2006 and August 2007.
Fraud investigators discovered Parks had failed to declare an interest in another property.
2 comments:
Im taking it that that all the people who have added these snippets from the local rag, along with their own personal view and judgment are well au fait on these cases and have been following them to the hilt. Obviously not.
For in some cases these ‘Deliberate fraud’ cases can turn out to be no such thing. But an innocent person caught up with a system they did not understand.
It is NOT intentional stealing when a person though no fault of their own fills in paperwork incorrectly, for example not knowing they are supposed to declare voluntary work or property they no longer reside in or have any involvement in, but have not been taken off the deeds.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law this kind of ‘ignorance’ is not an excuse, no matter how well intended the victims who are prosecuted are.
Maybe a bit of background research into these cases before calling these people ‘fraudsters’ and ‘dishonest’.
That was the point I was trying to make in contrasting these cases.
The system is way too complicated, and I have sympathy for those whose circumstances change often and who get confused by it, as in the first case.
No sympathy for the deliberate thieves, though.
Post a Comment