Former boss told to hand over assets (From Worcester News)

Why is this man not in jail? Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?

CJH wrote:
Why is this man not in jail? Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?

Good point.

I actually think there is a case for much tougher penalties for white collar crime, in the private and public sector.

CJH wrote:
Why is this man not in jail? Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?

I agree they both should be. To compound matters, Weston's partner in crime, Mr Williams, still owns Premier Places although cleverly in his wife's name and therefore reducing Mr Williams' 'available assets' to compensate victims...seems very unfair.

This man isn't in jail because the judge, having weighed up all the evidence at his disposal decided that a custodial sentence didn't fit the crime committed. Simple as that...

worcesterway wrote:
This man isn't in jail because the judge, having weighed up all the evidence at his disposal decided that a custodial sentence didn't fit the crime committed. Simple as that...

That doesn't answer the question does it? Why not a custodial sentence?

It answers the question perfectly?! the judge has ALL the facts - what we have is the press version of the facts and the stuff they make up to pad out the story.. So as I say without the risk of repeating myself, the judge decided having the actual facts, that a custodial sentence wasn't appropriate..

worcesterway wrote:
It answers the question perfectly?! the judge has ALL the facts - what we have is the press version of the facts and the stuff they make up to pad out the story.. So as I say without the risk of repeating myself, the judge decided having the actual facts, that a custodial sentence wasn't appropriate..

His crimes are documented in court so that is fact and in the public domain. What have the press made up regarding this story? Please enlighten us.

Oh please CJH! Of course the press are whiter than white aren't they! Have you never heard of the phrase "why let the facts get in the way of a good story"?!! I've noticed at least one retraction and apology about getting the facts wrong on this story in WN, there may have been more that I didn't notice as it was buried on page 8! These two clearly did wrong and have been punished but the press are worse and don't even get me started on the bankers!

I didn't say that the press never do it. I asked what in particular you think they've made up in relation to these two men. Please don't change what I have said to suit your argument. You seem very agitated by this story, and to know that a retraction was on page 8 (a strange detail to know) makes me think that you may have a personal interest in this. If so, perhaps you should declare it and then we'll all know where we stand. And I would refer you back to my original question "Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?”

More Tea Vicar wrote:

CJH wrote:
Why is this man not in jail? Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?

Good point.

I actually think there is a case for much tougher penalties for white collar crime, in the private and public sector.

Actually the penalties for white collar crime are much more severe since the sentencing guidelines changed in 2009 prior to this prosecution. For the amount of money involved the judge could have easily passed down a custodial sentence of 2-5 years. The fact he didn't suggests that there were mitigating circumstances (which indeed probably weren't published in the press) which he felt balanced in the defendants favour meaning with all things considered a custodial sentence was not an appropriate punishment..

It seems to run in their family.

CJH wrote:
I didn't say that the press never do it. I asked what in particular you think they've made up in relation to these two men. Please don't change what I have said to suit your argument. You seem very agitated by this story, and to know that a retraction was on page 8 (a strange detail to know) makes me think that you may have a personal interest in this. If so, perhaps you should declare it and then we'll all know where we stand. And I would refer you back to my original question "Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?”

No Personal interest CJH and it's you that is agitating me not the story. My page 8 comment was clearly tongue in cheek (not that I would expect you to get that) I don't actually know which page it was on, my point was retractions are always buried rather than prominent like the original factually incorrect stories. You seem to be defending the press quite strongly so perhaps you're the reporter! I would have thought the very fact WN printed a retraction about this story suggests that they do and have got their facts wrong in the past...

worcesterway wrote:

CJH wrote: I didn't say that the press never do it. I asked what in particular you think they've made up in relation to these two men. Please don't change what I have said to suit your argument. You seem very agitated by this story, and to know that a retraction was on page 8 (a strange detail to know) makes me think that you may have a personal interest in this. If so, perhaps you should declare it and then we'll all know where we stand. And I would refer you back to my original question "Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?”

No Personal interest CJH and it's you that is agitating me not the story. My page 8 comment was clearly tongue in cheek (not that I would expect you to get that) I don't actually know which page it was on, my point was retractions are always buried rather than prominent like the original factually incorrect stories. You seem to be defending the press quite strongly so perhaps you're the reporter! I would have thought the very fact WN printed a retraction about this story suggests that they do and have got their facts wrong in the past...

You're new here aren't you? Must be, or you'd know that I am absolutely not a reporter, and am critical of the press when necessary! However, you're still avoiding my original question about white collar crime, but no matter.
.
Anyway, no need to get so het up. You'll be amused to know that I've just broken a tooth eating Weetabix and my dentist is shut for the weekend. :-(

Can't understand why both weren't given directorship bans.

I thought Chris Williams sold his company Worcester Tiles a couple of years ago, I wonder what happened to the money?

CJH wrote:

worcesterway wrote:

CJH wrote: I didn't say that the press never do it. I asked what in particular you think they've made up in relation to these two men. Please don't change what I have said to suit your argument. You seem very agitated by this story, and to know that a retraction was on page 8 (a strange detail to know) makes me think that you may have a personal interest in this. If so, perhaps you should declare it and then we'll all know where we stand. And I would refer you back to my original question "Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?”

No Personal interest CJH and it's you that is agitating me not the story. My page 8 comment was clearly tongue in cheek (not that I would expect you to get that) I don't actually know which page it was on, my point was retractions are always buried rather than prominent like the original factually incorrect stories. You seem to be defending the press quite strongly so perhaps you're the reporter! I would have thought the very fact WN printed a retraction about this story suggests that they do and have got their facts wrong in the past...

You're new here aren't you? Must be, or you'd know that I am absolutely not a reporter, and am critical of the press when necessary! However, you're still avoiding my original question about white collar crime, but no matter.
.
Anyway, no need to get so het up. You'll be amused to know that I've just broken a tooth eating Weetabix and my dentist is shut for the weekend. :-(

My sympathies CJH. Going to the dentist is bad enough without being in pain all weekend with the added expectation of a visit to the dentist to deal with! Perhaps try some milk with your weetabix? Makes them softer!

worcesterway wrote:

CJH wrote:

worcesterway wrote:

CJH wrote: I didn't say that the press never do it. I asked what in particular you think they've made up in relation to these two men. Please don't change what I have said to suit your argument. You seem very agitated by this story, and to know that a retraction was on page 8 (a strange detail to know) makes me think that you may have a personal interest in this. If so, perhaps you should declare it and then we'll all know where we stand. And I would refer you back to my original question "Why is 'white collar' crime where money is stolen not treated the same as robbery?”

No Personal interest CJH and it's you that is agitating me not the story. My page 8 comment was clearly tongue in cheek (not that I would expect you to get that) I don't actually know which page it was on, my point was retractions are always buried rather than prominent like the original factually incorrect stories. You seem to be defending the press quite strongly so perhaps you're the reporter! I would have thought the very fact WN printed a retraction about this story suggests that they do and have got their facts wrong in the past...

You're new here aren't you? Must be, or you'd know that I am absolutely not a reporter, and am critical of the press when necessary! However, you're still avoiding my original question about white collar crime, but no matter. . Anyway, no need to get so het up. You'll be amused to know that I've just broken a tooth eating Weetabix and my dentist is shut for the weekend. :-(

My sympathies CJH. Going to the dentist is bad enough without being in pain all weekend with the added expectation of a visit to the dentist to deal with! Perhaps try some milk with your weetabix? Makes them softer!

Am treating it with Southern Comfort...

brooksider wrote:
Can't understand why both weren't given directorship bans.

I thought Chris Williams sold his company Worcester Tiles a couple of years ago, I wonder what happened to the money?

I feel I need to make comment to add some balance to comments already made regarding this story. It seems some people making comments have ulterior motives and clearly know the people involved which adds a bias to their arguments either in a negative or positive way. I don't know the people involved however I do have a legal background and have done a little research about this case.

It seems to me that due to Brandon Weston’s previous high profile within the business community, the story has been sensationalised and probably blown out of proportion by the local press. Let’s look at the facts that we know bearing in mind both men pleaded guilty so there was no trial where far more information would have been available.

Firstly both men were not sent to prison for the crimes they committed. Secondly neither were given banning orders against holding future company directorships despite the CPS requesting this. Thirdly, Mr Weston was found to benefit around £160,000 from the crimes he committed (which seems to be the amount of missing tenant deposit money which the insurance company had to pay out to cover) Mr Williams was found to benefit around £15,000 from fees he gained from the business relationship with Mr Weston.

If what they did was that bad the judge would have sent them to prison. For the amount of money involved the sentencing guidelines suggest between 2-5 years imprisonment however the judge then takes mitigating circumstances into account allowing him to reduce this. He would have also definitely granted the banning order. The banning order is interesting because in considering a banning order, the judge needs to decide whether there is a future risk to the public by allowing the individuals to continue to or run companies in the future. Clearly he did not feel there was a risk involved which again leads me to believe that there were many mitigating circumstances in favour of the defendants.

It seems to have been agreed that the companies were set up as legitimate companies with no intention to commit fraud. Somewhere down the line (probably around the time of the economy downturn) monies were used that did not belong to the companies for whatever reason however probably to help the companies through that period of financial difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that this position was put right however something went wrong with a deal to sell part of the business when the authorities became involved which lead to a shortfall in the tenants deposits which then couldn't be put right.

So I would suggest that the reason they did not go to prison or get banning orders is that the judge felt they did everything they could to rectify the position and did not intend to set out to commit fraud. It also seems no individuals lost money as any missing deposit monies were insured so it was only the insurance company that lost out who clearly make a commercial decision when offering the policy.

I know this doesn't make for a very good story however from what I can see it is factually correct.

BrianCC wrote:

brooksider wrote:
Can't understand why both weren't given directorship bans.

I thought Chris Williams sold his company Worcester Tiles a couple of years ago, I wonder what happened to the money?

I feel I need to make comment to add some balance to comments already made regarding this story. It seems some people making comments have ulterior motives and clearly know the people involved which adds a bias to their arguments either in a negative or positive way. I don't know the people involved however I do have a legal background and have done a little research about this case.

It seems to me that due to Brandon Weston’s previous high profile within the business community, the story has been sensationalised and probably blown out of proportion by the local press. Let’s look at the facts that we know bearing in mind both men pleaded guilty so there was no trial where far more information would have been available.

Firstly both men were not sent to prison for the crimes they committed. Secondly neither were given banning orders against holding future company directorships despite the CPS requesting this. Thirdly, Mr Weston was found to benefit around £160,000 from the crimes he committed (which seems to be the amount of missing tenant deposit money which the insurance company had to pay out to cover) Mr Williams was found to benefit around £15,000 from fees he gained from the business relationship with Mr Weston.

If what they did was that bad the judge would have sent them to prison. For the amount of money involved the sentencing guidelines suggest between 2-5 years imprisonment however the judge then takes mitigating circumstances into account allowing him to reduce this. He would have also definitely granted the banning order. The banning order is interesting because in considering a banning order, the judge needs to decide whether there is a future risk to the public by allowing the individuals to continue to or run companies in the future. Clearly he did not feel there was a risk involved which again leads me to believe that there were many mitigating circumstances in favour of the defendants.

It seems to have been agreed that the companies were set up as legitimate companies with no intention to commit fraud. Somewhere down the line (probably around the time of the economy downturn) monies were used that did not belong to the companies for whatever reason however probably to help the companies through that period of financial difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that this position was put right however something went wrong with a deal to sell part of the business when the authorities became involved which lead to a shortfall in the tenants deposits which then couldn't be put right.

So I would suggest that the reason they did not go to prison or get banning orders is that the judge felt they did everything they could to rectify the position and did not intend to set out to commit fraud. It also seems no individuals lost money as any missing deposit monies were insured so it was only the insurance company that lost out who clearly make a commercial decision when offering the policy.

I know this doesn't make for a very good story however from what I can see it is factually correct.

A little more balance for you, taken from UPad.co.uk

A lettings agent who defrauded tenants to the tune of £137,660 has escaped a jail sentence. Brandon Weston of Premier Places Lettings located in Worcester and Redditch used tenancy deposits from 203 tenants to fund other business projects.

Weston pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud between 2007 and 2009. An accomplice, Chris Williams, pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery. Weston received a 12 month jail sentence for 2 years and 250 hours community service. Williams was sentenced to 8 months prison also suspended for two years with 150 hours community service. The Judge said of Weston, who is now bankrupt, that he had taken prompt action to rectify the loss and had shown genuine remorse.

Amounts ranging from £400 to £1000 were defrauded from tenants and the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) paid out more than £63,000 to the victims. TDS Chief executive Steve Harriott, condemned the lenient sentences.

“Not only were their actions fraudulent, they served to undermine the excellent work of properly self-regulated agents,” Harriott said. “Criminals like this should go to jail, not have their sentences suspended. They have defrauded private individuals and brought disrepute to the private rented sector. The law requires deposits to be protected through authorised tenancy deposit schemes and this case highlights once again the need for regulation of the private rented sector and for the courts to take these frauds and the protection of consumers more seriously.”

DC Harrison said that whilst such cases were rare the police do take them seriously and also recognise that the loss of these deposits had caused significant hardship for tenants and also landlords who voluntarily refunded the lost deposits. “Our investigation found that Weston had not kept all clients’ tenancy deposits in a ring-fenced account as he should have done and was used in other business accounts,” said Harrison

“The net effect of Weston’s crimes is that hundreds of clients have lost amounts ranging from £400 to more than £1,000 in some instances. This also includes landlords who reimbursed tenants with their lost deposits when their tenancies ended.”

brooksider wrote:

BrianCC wrote:

brooksider wrote:
Can't understand why both weren't given directorship bans.

I thought Chris Williams sold his company Worcester Tiles a couple of years ago, I wonder what happened to the money?

I feel I need to make comment to add some balance to comments already made regarding this story. It seems some people making comments have ulterior motives and clearly know the people involved which adds a bias to their arguments either in a negative or positive way. I don't know the people involved however I do have a legal background and have done a little research about this case.

It seems to me that due to Brandon Weston’s previous high profile within the business community, the story has been sensationalised and probably blown out of proportion by the local press. Let’s look at the facts that we know bearing in mind both men pleaded guilty so there was no trial where far more information would have been available.

Firstly both men were not sent to prison for the crimes they committed. Secondly neither were given banning orders against holding future company directorships despite the CPS requesting this. Thirdly, Mr Weston was found to benefit around £160,000 from the crimes he committed (which seems to be the amount of missing tenant deposit money which the insurance company had to pay out to cover) Mr Williams was found to benefit around £15,000 from fees he gained from the business relationship with Mr Weston.

If what they did was that bad the judge would have sent them to prison. For the amount of money involved the sentencing guidelines suggest between 2-5 years imprisonment however the judge then takes mitigating circumstances into account allowing him to reduce this. He would have also definitely granted the banning order. The banning order is interesting because in considering a banning order, the judge needs to decide whether there is a future risk to the public by allowing the individuals to continue to or run companies in the future. Clearly he did not feel there was a risk involved which again leads me to believe that there were many mitigating circumstances in favour of the defendants.

It seems to have been agreed that the companies were set up as legitimate companies with no intention to commit fraud. Somewhere down the line (probably around the time of the economy downturn) monies were used that did not belong to the companies for whatever reason however probably to help the companies through that period of financial difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that this position was put right however something went wrong with a deal to sell part of the business when the authorities became involved which lead to a shortfall in the tenants deposits which then couldn't be put right.

So I would suggest that the reason they did not go to prison or get banning orders is that the judge felt they did everything they could to rectify the position and did not intend to set out to commit fraud. It also seems no individuals lost money as any missing deposit monies were insured so it was only the insurance company that lost out who clearly make a commercial decision when offering the policy.

I know this doesn't make for a very good story however from what I can see it is factually correct.

A little more balance for you, taken from UPad.co.uk

A lettings agent who defrauded tenants to the tune of £137,660 has escaped a jail sentence. Brandon Weston of Premier Places Lettings located in Worcester and Redditch used tenancy deposits from 203 tenants to fund other business projects.

Weston pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud between 2007 and 2009. An accomplice, Chris Williams, pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery. Weston received a 12 month jail sentence for 2 years and 250 hours community service. Williams was sentenced to 8 months prison also suspended for two years with 150 hours community service. The Judge said of Weston, who is now bankrupt, that he had taken prompt action to rectify the loss and had shown genuine remorse.

Amounts ranging from £400 to £1000 were defrauded from tenants and the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) paid out more than £63,000 to the victims. TDS Chief executive Steve Harriott, condemned the lenient sentences.

“Not only were their actions fraudulent, they served to undermine the excellent work of properly self-regulated agents,” Harriott said. “Criminals like this should go to jail, not have their sentences suspended. They have defrauded private individuals and brought disrepute to the private rented sector. The law requires deposits to be protected through authorised tenancy deposit schemes and this case highlights once again the need for regulation of the private rented sector and for the courts to take these frauds and the protection of consumers more seriously.”

DC Harrison said that whilst such cases were rare the police do take them seriously and also recognise that the loss of these deposits had caused significant hardship for tenants and also landlords who voluntarily refunded the lost deposits. “Our investigation found that Weston had not kept all clients’ tenancy deposits in a ring-fenced account as he should have done and was used in other business accounts,” said Harrison

“The net effect of Weston’s crimes is that hundreds of clients have lost amounts ranging from £400 to more than £1,000 in some instances. This also includes landlords who reimbursed tenants with their lost deposits when their tenancies ended.”

Sorry I don't see your point? The information above was also published by WN in September 2011. The judge confirmed at the hearing on Thursday that all tenants had been reimbursed by the insurance company and that monies paid by Weston and Williams should go directly to the insurance company to mitigate their loss. This information is also printed above...

Wrong. All tenants have not been compensated. The Judge decided in his wisdom that it would be too much hassle to pay out over 100 small amounts so ordered it al to go to the insurance company! I'm sure they would have gone to prison if they weren't already full of our visitors from overseas, but then that's another story.

BrianCC wrote:

brooksider wrote:

BrianCC wrote:

brooksider wrote:
Can't understand why both weren't given directorship bans.

I thought Chris Williams sold his company Worcester Tiles a couple of years ago, I wonder what happened to the money?

I feel I need to make comment to add some balance to comments already made regarding this story. It seems some people making comments have ulterior motives and clearly know the people involved which adds a bias to their arguments either in a negative or positive way. I don't know the people involved however I do have a legal background and have done a little research about this case.

It seems to me that due to Brandon Weston’s previous high profile within the business community, the story has been sensationalised and probably blown out of proportion by the local press. Let’s look at the facts that we know bearing in mind both men pleaded guilty so there was no trial where far more information would have been available.

Firstly both men were not sent to prison for the crimes they committed. Secondly neither were given banning orders against holding future company directorships despite the CPS requesting this. Thirdly, Mr Weston was found to benefit around £160,000 from the crimes he committed (which seems to be the amount of missing tenant deposit money which the insurance company had to pay out to cover) Mr Williams was found to benefit around £15,000 from fees he gained from the business relationship with Mr Weston.

If what they did was that bad the judge would have sent them to prison. For the amount of money involved the sentencing guidelines suggest between 2-5 years imprisonment however the judge then takes mitigating circumstances into account allowing him to reduce this. He would have also definitely granted the banning order. The banning order is interesting because in considering a banning order, the judge needs to decide whether there is a future risk to the public by allowing the individuals to continue to or run companies in the future. Clearly he did not feel there was a risk involved which again leads me to believe that there were many mitigating circumstances in favour of the defendants.

It seems to have been agreed that the companies were set up as legitimate companies with no intention to commit fraud. Somewhere down the line (probably around the time of the economy downturn) monies were used that did not belong to the companies for whatever reason however probably to help the companies through that period of financial difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that this position was put right however something went wrong with a deal to sell part of the business when the authorities became involved which lead to a shortfall in the tenants deposits which then couldn't be put right.

So I would suggest that the reason they did not go to prison or get banning orders is that the judge felt they did everything they could to rectify the position and did not intend to set out to commit fraud. It also seems no individuals lost money as any missing deposit monies were insured so it was only the insurance company that lost out who clearly make a commercial decision when offering the policy.

I know this doesn't make for a very good story however from what I can see it is factually correct.

A little more balance for you, taken from UPad.co.uk

A lettings agent who defrauded tenants to the tune of £137,660 has escaped a jail sentence. Brandon Weston of Premier Places Lettings located in Worcester and Redditch used tenancy deposits from 203 tenants to fund other business projects.

Weston pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud between 2007 and 2009. An accomplice, Chris Williams, pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery. Weston received a 12 month jail sentence for 2 years and 250 hours community service. Williams was sentenced to 8 months prison also suspended for two years with 150 hours community service. The Judge said of Weston, who is now bankrupt, that he had taken prompt action to rectify the loss and had shown genuine remorse.

Amounts ranging from £400 to £1000 were defrauded from tenants and the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) paid out more than £63,000 to the victims. TDS Chief executive Steve Harriott, condemned the lenient sentences.

“Not only were their actions fraudulent, they served to undermine the excellent work of properly self-regulated agents,” Harriott said. “Criminals like this should go to jail, not have their sentences suspended. They have defrauded private individuals and brought disrepute to the private rented sector. The law requires deposits to be protected through authorised tenancy deposit schemes and this case highlights once again the need for regulation of the private rented sector and for the courts to take these frauds and the protection of consumers more seriously.”

DC Harrison said that whilst such cases were rare the police do take them seriously and also recognise that the loss of these deposits had caused significant hardship for tenants and also landlords who voluntarily refunded the lost deposits. “Our investigation found that Weston had not kept all clients’ tenancy deposits in a ring-fenced account as he should have done and was used in other business accounts,” said Harrison

“The net effect of Weston’s crimes is that hundreds of clients have lost amounts ranging from £400 to more than £1,000 in some instances. This also includes landlords who reimbursed tenants with their lost deposits when their tenancies ended.”

Sorry I don't see your point? The information above was also published by WN in September 2011. The judge confirmed at the hearing on Thursday that all tenants had been reimbursed by the insurance company and that monies paid by Weston and Williams should go directly to the insurance company to mitigate their loss. This information is also printed above...

I wanted to highlight some flaws in your reasoning.

The fraud started before the recession and any downturn.

Brandon Weston used tenants money to finance a home in France, not to keep an ailing company going, indeed it seems Premier Places was such a viable business that his co-accused, Chris Williams, purchased it for over £400,000.

Tenants, Landlords and the non profit making TDS, may have been compensated for their financial loss, but the certainly have not received compensation for the financial hardship,distress and considerable inconvenience caused by these criminals.

As you say, you did little research, it shows.

As I say I only have information available in the public domain where as clearly you have inside information which can not be substantiated. Obviously you are one of those people making comments that knows the individuals involved and has a axe to grind..

BrianCC wrote:
As I say I only have information available in the public domain where as clearly you have inside information which can not be substantiated. Obviously you are one of those people making comments that knows the individuals involved and has a axe to grind..

Wrong, I do not, and do not wish to, know the individuals but I do know someone who was one of their victims.

Any information I have is in the public domain also.

brooksider wrote:

BrianCC wrote:
As I say I only have information available in the public domain where as clearly you have inside information which can not be substantiated. Obviously you are one of those people making comments that knows the individuals involved and has a axe to grind..

Wrong, I do not, and do not wish to, know the individuals but I do know someone who was one of their victims.

Any information I have is in the public domain also.

Seriously brooksider? Comments regarding knowing about other businesses Mr Williams has sold and previous comments relating to this story about the financial involvement of a well known Worcester publican would suggest others...

To set the record straight, I am a former tenant of Premier Places and a victim of the fraud from the above mentioned individuals.

No insurance payout was received and as you can see from the story above, the judge opted to pay the insurance companies rather than the victims.

In my case, the system has failed and justice has not been served.