Published date: 30 September 2016 |
A WOMAN defrauded her vulnerable aunt out of more than £40,000 escaped immediate prison – mainly because she has a four month old baby son to care for.
On Wednesday, defendant Amy Louise Waite, 23, admitted stealing three cheques, and offences of fraud, against her aunty, Sharon Pierce, of Prestatyn, who had been left distraught by what her niece had done.
On Wednesday, defendant Amy Louise Waite, 23, admitted stealing three cheques, and offences of fraud, against her aunty, Sharon Pierce, of Prestatyn, who had been left distraught by what her niece had done.
A judge told Waite she had been “outrageously mean”.
Mold Crown Court heard the victim described herself as an alcoholic, after her divorce received a cash settlement and Waite would visit her home to help her.
Prosecuting barrister Matthew Curtis said that the victim agreed to give her £1,500 after being told that Waite had financial difficulties in her business.
She had trusted her niece with her bank card and PIN but in October last year it was discovered that a large amount of money had been withdrawn.
When confronted, she immediately began to argue with her aunt and a few days later threatened her aunt, saying she was “dead”.
She later visited her home and the victim agreed to withdraw £500 for her after she felt she had been “frogmarched” to the bank.
The court heard that blank cheque stubs were found and money had also been withdrawn from cash machines.
Since, the victim had the money returned by the bank which itself was re-imbursed all but £6,000 by the defendant.
Arrested and interviewed, she claimed that she had been given cheques by her aunt as a gift.
In a victim impact statement Mrs Pierce said that she had been assaulted by her ex-husband, she had gone through a divorce, and she was devastated by what the defendant had done to her, knowing how extremely down she had become.
Mold Crown Court heard the victim described herself as an alcoholic, after her divorce received a cash settlement and Waite would visit her home to help her.
Prosecuting barrister Matthew Curtis said that the victim agreed to give her £1,500 after being told that Waite had financial difficulties in her business.
She had trusted her niece with her bank card and PIN but in October last year it was discovered that a large amount of money had been withdrawn.
When confronted, she immediately began to argue with her aunt and a few days later threatened her aunt, saying she was “dead”.
She later visited her home and the victim agreed to withdraw £500 for her after she felt she had been “frogmarched” to the bank.
The court heard that blank cheque stubs were found and money had also been withdrawn from cash machines.
Since, the victim had the money returned by the bank which itself was re-imbursed all but £6,000 by the defendant.
Arrested and interviewed, she claimed that she had been given cheques by her aunt as a gift.
In a victim impact statement Mrs Pierce said that she had been assaulted by her ex-husband, she had gone through a divorce, and she was devastated by what the defendant had done to her, knowing how extremely down she had become.
At the time she found solace in drink but when told by the police that the money which had been taken had been traced to her niece’s account she was absolutely devastated.
When the scale of what she had done emerged, her devastation turned to anger.
“How can someone of my own family, aware of what I have been through and my vulnerability, target me and my money,” she said in a victim impact statement.
She looked upon the defendant as a daughter and if she had asked for financial help she would probably have given it.
Judge Geraint Walters said that the defendant had taken advantage of a family member “in this outrageously mean way”.
While her motivation had clearly been to get money she had committed the offence against a woman who was at the time a hopeless alcoholic and unlikely to spot what was going on.
“Why you should have needed quite so much money is something I cannot begin to understand.
“It leads me to the view that you found it was easy and that greed set in,” he told her.
She took the risk, recklessly took the money and the day of reckoning had arrived.
The judge said she could not complain if she went to prison immediately but she had a baby boy and it was clear that if she went into custody any chance of a future relationship with him would probably be gone forever.
It was a finely balanced thing but he had decided the 18 month prison sentence he would pass for the offences would be suspended for two years.
“You have been spared prison by a whisker today,” Judge Walters warned her.
She had previously pleaded not guilty and was due to go on trial but then she changed her pleas.
Waite then of Grosvenor Wharf Road in Ellesmere Port, but now said to be living in a mother and baby unit in Liverpool, admitted that between June and November of last year she stole three cheques.
She admitted three fraud charges by dishonestly claiming she was entitled to receive £15,000, then £10,000 and then £13,000 from the victim’s account.
Waite, a woman of good character, admitted two further fraud charges involving the withdrawal of some £6,000 from cash machines from accounts held by the victim.
Defending barrister Michael Whitty she had not gained to the extent of the £40,000 and money had been recovered by the bank.
She faced the prospect of custody with trepidation and the stakes could not be higher for her, because if she was jailed she would probably lose her child.
The defendant had a difficult upbringing but nothing could excuse or justify what she had done.
Thankfully the loss to the complainant was nil and the bank had recovered most of the money.
She was a low risk of re-offending and the court was unlikely to see her again, said Mr Whitty.
When the scale of what she had done emerged, her devastation turned to anger.
“How can someone of my own family, aware of what I have been through and my vulnerability, target me and my money,” she said in a victim impact statement.
She looked upon the defendant as a daughter and if she had asked for financial help she would probably have given it.
Judge Geraint Walters said that the defendant had taken advantage of a family member “in this outrageously mean way”.
While her motivation had clearly been to get money she had committed the offence against a woman who was at the time a hopeless alcoholic and unlikely to spot what was going on.
“Why you should have needed quite so much money is something I cannot begin to understand.
“It leads me to the view that you found it was easy and that greed set in,” he told her.
She took the risk, recklessly took the money and the day of reckoning had arrived.
The judge said she could not complain if she went to prison immediately but she had a baby boy and it was clear that if she went into custody any chance of a future relationship with him would probably be gone forever.
It was a finely balanced thing but he had decided the 18 month prison sentence he would pass for the offences would be suspended for two years.
“You have been spared prison by a whisker today,” Judge Walters warned her.
She had previously pleaded not guilty and was due to go on trial but then she changed her pleas.
Waite then of Grosvenor Wharf Road in Ellesmere Port, but now said to be living in a mother and baby unit in Liverpool, admitted that between June and November of last year she stole three cheques.
She admitted three fraud charges by dishonestly claiming she was entitled to receive £15,000, then £10,000 and then £13,000 from the victim’s account.
Waite, a woman of good character, admitted two further fraud charges involving the withdrawal of some £6,000 from cash machines from accounts held by the victim.
Defending barrister Michael Whitty she had not gained to the extent of the £40,000 and money had been recovered by the bank.
She faced the prospect of custody with trepidation and the stakes could not be higher for her, because if she was jailed she would probably lose her child.
The defendant had a difficult upbringing but nothing could excuse or justify what she had done.
Thankfully the loss to the complainant was nil and the bank had recovered most of the money.
She was a low risk of re-offending and the court was unlikely to see her again, said Mr Whitty.
see-http://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/news/167364/woman-who-defrauded-prestatyn-aunt-out-of-more-than-40-000-escapes-immediate-prison.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment