ITS watch

Crown v Ashley Mote (16 July – 17 August 2007)
A Summary
To the best of our knowledge and belief the following has been written, on the basis that it is a fair, accurate and impartial account of the proceedings, in front of a jury, as instructed by His Honour Judge Price.
In a trial that lasted for four weeks Ashley Mote faced twenty-five indictments. Nine related to False Accounting; nine for Obtaining Money Transfers by Deception; one for Failure to Notify Change of Circumstances; six for Evasion of Liability by Deception (this refers to Council Tax, but did not involve Mote receiving monies).
The case revolved around claims for Income Support, Housing Benefit and evasion of liability of Council Tax from 1996 to 2002, whilst he was in receipt of personal income, which he failed to declare to the Benefits Agency as required by law.
Chichester District Council Housing Benefits department and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) alleged that he had received £73,000 in benefits to which he was not entitled, during that period. The prosecution called a number of officials from the Housing Benefits department to explain how the benefit system works. Prior to the trial, the defence said it would accept their evidence, but would raise some queries. The defence asked some of these witnesses’ questions on interpretation of what constitutes ‘income’. (The point here was that regardless of whether the ‘income’ was subject to income tax, any income should have been declared in
order that an entitlement to benefits can be correctly assessed). Both sides employed forensic accountants and they produced agreed schedules that were accepted by the defence and prosecution. It had also been agreed that only one of the accountants needed to give evidence.
The prosecution mounted a very strong case and proved that Mote was a director of a number of companies, two of which he initially denied having any dealings with. They also revealed that during the six years he was on benefits he received over £10,500 as a tax-free lump sum from a private pension plan, along with annual payments of £991 before tax. He failed to declare this to the agency, as required on the A1 and A2 benefits forms. He used part of the lump sum to take a holiday in Barbados and to pay off some debts – again whilst still claiming Income Support and Housing Benefit. He also failed to declare that he was a company director. In an interview with
the DWP in 2001 he denied having any involvement with a company called Tanner Management saying that his dealings with that company were few and years ago, when in fact he was the director of the company. In a second interview in March ’02 he refused to answer questions regarding Tanner Management and in a third interview he answered “No comment” to all
questions - on legal advice. He did not reveal to the agency that he had deposited £5000 with a financial broker in 1993 for use in “spread betting” on the currency markets. This “gambling” as it was referred to in court, brought in a substantial amount of money over the six-year period, which he again failed to declare to the Benefits Agency as income. His defence was that, as he did not have to declare these “winnings” to the Inland Revenue he did not have to inform the
Benefits Agency. This despite the fact that the claims form specifically asks if the claimant has “any other monies coming in”. Suspicions were raised by Chichester District Council’s Housing Benefit office when they discovered that the rent for his accommodation at Langley Court
East was greater than the amount of Housing Benefit he was receiving and they began investigating how he was making up the difference. They discovered that the rent for his flat was paid through a company called Caravelle Investments Ltd and had a letter from that company stating that they were the landlords, when in fact the landlord was an individual – Mr
James Low. Mr Low was shown the letter from Caravelle just prior to the trial and was dismayed at its content. He had never heard of Caravelle before and stated in evidence that his family owned the property - not Caravelle Ltd. Also on the letter was a reference to OSS.
Mote became involved with a cleaning company in 1996, which was owned by his wife’s cousin Miss Rance. They set up a limited company with Mote as the company secretary. It was decided that she and Mote would have the same “drawings” from the company; that she would look after the physical side of business whilst Mote took care of the administration and accounts. Each month Mote would contact Miss Rance to tell her how much she could withdraw from the company account for herself and to cover employees’ wages. She made separate claims for ‘consumable’ expenses, such as cleaning fluids etc. It was also agreed that the company should take out loans to purchase cars for Mote and herself. She re-paid the loan from her own salary, whilst Mote paid for it through his Tanner Management account. This was shown on the company accounts as payments to Tanner Management Ltd. Miss Rance was asked if her company had any dealings with Tanner Management and she answered, “No, there was no reason for (the cleaning company) to have dealings with it” Miss Rance became worried when Mote would not tell her how much he was drawing from the company and when she queried this with him at a meeting in a hotel lobby, as his drawings did not appear in the company accounts, he said that it was because “it was done in a another way”. Miss Rance then sought advice from her own accountant who asked to her to obtain the account books. She was invited to Langley Court and was told she could look at the books but could not take them away – Mote had left a note to that effect, which was produced in evidence. Asked about credit card payments that appeared on the accounts she stated that the company did not have any credit cards, especially an American Express card. Asked about other payments she said she had no idea as to
what they were for or who the people were that the payments were made to. Asked whether her company had an office, she said “No” and said that she worked from home and she assumed that Mote did too. However, in the accounts was an item for office rent. The prosecution asked
Miss Rance if she had trusted Mote. “Yes of course I did” she replied, “he was family for God’s sake!”
It was later clarified that Mote had two credit cards and an Amex card for personal use and was using monies from the company’s account to make credit card payments, via his Tanner Management Ltd bank account. Miss Rance said in evidence that £30,000 had “disappeared” from her company’s account. After a forensic account analysis of Mote’s bank statements, cheque stubs, paying-in books etc, the prosecution were informed that Mote had spent over
£150,000 for the six-year period 1996-2002 whilst still claiming Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax relief. Much of Mote’s financial dealings were done through Tanner Management Ltd. The prosecution proved that far from only having a few dealings with the
company some years ago, “Tanner Management Ltd was Ashley Mote and Ashley Mote was Tanner Management Ltd, all the family knew that” said Miss Rance, and that he had “lied” about this connection. Originally registered in the Isle of Man the company was under the control of Mote who moved the company address to a PO Box in Petersfield and rented office space in the name of Tanner Management in same town, just six miles from where he lived. The office rent of £235 per month was paid through the cleaning company’s account.
Written evidence was submitted by the prosecution from various bank officials, confirming that documents submitted by them were true and accurate. DWP investigators gave evidence regarding the interviews they had had with Mote in late 2001 and 2002, and a summary of the investigations they had undertaken. “Agreed Facts”, with regard to benefit claims to a total of £73,041, were submitted and accepted along with bank and credit card accounts in Mote’s
name.
On the 6th August Mote took the stand in his own defence. He began by giving details of his working background culminating in him setting up a company called Q International in the late ‘70s – early ‘80s. It was a management consultancy with a staff of 30 people and offices in the
USA, Australia and the UK. He explained that the company had dealings with multi-national corporations and was a thriving business. During this time he met an American called Jack Tanner in Houston and because of mutual interests, decided to set up an international property company. The company was registered in Delaware USA and the Isle of Man as Tanner
Management,. Asked the reason for this he said it was to take advantage of the tax regimes in those places, which was normal business practice. It was later incorporated as a limited company In 1989 Q International failed due to “Black Wednesday” when Britain crashed out of the ERM. Mote was faced with financial ruin and was forced to sell his house in order to pay off an overdraft and other creditors. He tried to find employment during 1991 – 93 but it was "hopeless". He then applied for benefits but was advised that as he had been self-employed he would be better off trying to set up another business. Asked how he had managed financially during this period, he said “increasing debt and support from friends”. He then worked abroad until 1996 until the work dried up and he returned to the UK to look for further employment, but eventually ended up claiming benefits. As he had reached the age of sixty by 1996 he was now entitled to Income Support and was not expected to be actively seeking employment. He confirmed that all the signatures on the claims forms were his. Asked about Caravelle Ltd he confirmed that signatures on letters from the company were Jack Tanner’s. Asked why aravelle was named as his landlord he said that it was because Jack Tanner had guaranteed the rent, should there be a shortfall if Mote was in financial difficulties, although he agreed Mr James Low
was in fact the actual landlord. With regard to the spread betting he said he deposited £5000 with GNI Financial Brokers in the early 1990’s, which set him up with an account with Overseas Sterling Services (OSS). The defence then took him through the Income Support and Housing Benefit forms to confirm that they were correct. He was asked about cheques that he had written, but the judge did not follow his explanation. Mote gave reasons for the cheques but did not remember some of them as he suffered from a bad memory, a point that was raised a few times during his evidence and cross-examination. Asked what effect he believed his 65th birthday had had on his Income Support he said he had missed the fact that his state pension was “topped up” with Income Support and it did not cross his mind that he was still on benefits,
despite a letter from the Agency detailing his state pension and Income Support entitlements.
In anticipation of a private pension transfer of £10,600 he took a holiday in Barbados in September 2001. He said he used the balance to pay off some debts. He was then asked about his interviews with the DWP. In the first interview in November 2001 he provided them with bank statements and other information, all of which were “edited” by him. Asked why they were edited he said that they contained personal material that was not relevant. His next interview was in March 2002 where he read a prepared statement and refused to answer questions regarding Tanner Management Ltd, although his legal representative had been notified of the questions beforehand. His Income support was stopped on 20th September 2002. He attended a third interview on 6th November 2002 but answered all questions with “No comment”.
The defence then asked about payments into his Abbey National account, which Mote explained was to facilitate his benefit payments. Three character witnesses were called to give verbal evidence along with a written statement.
Only one of the verbal witnesses was cross-examined. Under cross-examination Mote was asked about Caravelle Investments Ltd and OSS. Mote said that OSS was the codeword for his account with the financial brokers, but eventually he admitted that OSS Ltd was a company
that he had set up, through his original company that crashed in 1989, and both shared the same address as that of Tanner Management in the Isle of Man. In the forensic analysis a company called Cater Allen was mentioned. The company is a private bank and Mote initially denied that he had an account with them. The following day it was revealed that he had lied, as monies from
his spread betting went through that account to another of his bank accounts, Abbey International, which Mote had also denied having any knowledge but during the period between July 98 and September 2002 there were 5 payments of £750 and one of £1500, none of which were declared to the Benefits Agency. Again, all this whilst he was still on benefits. The prosecution asked for authority to obtain bank statements from Cater Allen and Abbey International for the whole period, but Mote refused, only allowing them access to the bank statements for 2002. He was then asked about his mortgage application in 2004. Whilst the
prosecution acknowledged that it was outside the 1996-2002 period, they drew attention to the fact that Mrs Mote had stated on the application form that she had been employed by a company called ODI Services as company secretary since 1999 on an annual salary of £12,000 plus dividends. This had not been declared on the Income Support, Housing Benefit forms as “any other monies coming in?” The letter from ODI Services to the mortgage lenders confirming her employment and salary was produced in evidence, signed by the managing director, Barnaby Mote, their son. It emerged that the salary payments and dividends paid to Mrs Mote were then ‘gifted’ back to Barnaby Mote. Ashley Mote stated in evidence that he no knowledge of these arrangements.
Part way through Mote’s evidence Barnaby Mote was “interposed”, despite objections from the prosecution. He was questioned on salary payments and dividends to his mother and agreed that the monies had been “gifted” back to him in order that he would not be liable for a higher rate of income tax. When contacted by Chichester Housing Benefit office regarding Mrs Mote’s income he sought legal and accounting advice and paid off the income tax.
On further cross-examination Ashley Mote was asked about a company called Franklin Wines. He explained that it was an Australian company that was trying to break into the UK wine market and that he had been asked by the company for advice on how to go about it. The company paid him various amounts, from £1,000 to £3,000 during the period from October to December 2002, which he considered to be expenses. It then transpired that Mote had become a director of the company - none of which was declared to the Benefits Agency.
The prosecution then made its closing argument and accused Mote of “dishonesty” and “lying”; of facilitating his “lifestyle” which included bills for restaurants, trips abroad and club membership fees. This was done through his credit cards, which were then paid for by money
from his spread betting, money from the cleaning company and other business activities, which he repeatedly maintained were business expenses rather than income.
The defence’s argument was that here was a man who had been devastated by the collapse of his successful company in the ERM crash of 1989, lost his house and who had made every effort to find work, up until 1996. Faced with the prospect of claiming benefits he had said that he did not understand the benefit system and the consequent form filling. The defence explained that Mote suffered from memory loss and was unable to mount a proper defence as he had destroyed a lot of documents, due to lack of space, following his move from Langley Court to a small flat and his MEP commitments.
In his summing up the judge spent a great deal of time explaining the indictments and the witness evidence. After deliberating for 10½ hours, the jury were recalled and asked if they had reached verdicts on any of the indictments. They were then taken through each of the indictments, 17 of which they all agreed on as guilty, 3 not guilty and 5 undecided. They retired
again and came back with verdicts on the 5 undecided indictments – 4 guilty and one not guilty - giving a total of 21 verdicts of guilty and 4 not guilty. The judge thanked the jury in the usual manner and told them that they could stay on to hear the rest of that day’s proceedings. One juror left. The judge then told Mote that he faced a custodial sentence and that he was setting bail at £50,000. He told him that he had to surrender his passport and not to leave England and Wales. On being informed by the defence that Mote had an EU diplomatic passport as well, which was the property of the EU parliament and therefore could not be surrendered, the judge demanded its surrender immediately on the basis that he was the judge in this court, not the
EU. He said that Mote had piled “deceit upon deceit”, that he was “not understanding the reality” and of “not understanding the position he was in”. The judge had real concerns regarding Mote’s true financial position and assets.
(After sureties had been given for bail, the case was adjourned for reports. Sentencing was eventually set for the 4th September.)

4th September 2007
After pleas for mitigation from defence counsel, Judge Richard Price said the following:
"Between 1996 and 2002 you made a series of claims for income support, council tax and housing benefit. The prosecution say they were false and dishonest and you failed to tell the authorities of your true financial position. The prosecution case was you had, and you knew you had, substantial other money which you dishonestly failed to disclose. After detailing the 21 charges of false accounting, failing to notify a change in circumstances, obtaining money by deception and evasion of liability, of which he was convicted and the four of which he was acquitted, Judge Price said, "The sums involved in what were a carefully planned series of deceptions were significant. £31,000 income support, £29,000 housing benefit and £4,000 council tax, sums in the region of £65,000 of tax payers money dishonestly obtained by you. You chose to dispute the allegations, you chose to plead not guilty. That is clearly a matter for you but it deprives you of a discount for a guilty plea. "You did not help yourself in your evidence to the jury. You gave every impression of being a thoroughly dishonest man and as cross-examination continued it became clear that there was a great deal that you had not
disclosed including the existence of two more bank accounts. You also went to a great deal of trouble to cover up your tracks to make it difficult for the authorities to find out anything about you. You opened at least one company registered in the United States of America and used post office box addresses in the Isle of Man and latterly close to your home. During the relevant period you were claiming this money you were in effect receiving substantial sums of money, tens of thousands of pounds which you kept quiet about."
The judge said that there were two sources of money, one from the cleaning company whilst wife received money from their son’s company, which she declared, but Mote could not do that as he was receiving benefits. "What you did was to claim re-imbursement of expenses which you had not incurred so boosting your income but doing it in a thoroughly dishonest way. The second source of income was gaming on currency. Whether that was the source of that money or wasn't you knew perfectly well you had to declare it. You knew it was money you had to declare. To say this case has ruined you is an under-statement. It is a tragedy. You have never been in trouble and always been an extremely hard working man who built up a successful business, which collapsed through no fault of your own. Witnesses spoke about your tireless efforts to get back on your feet again at an age when most people consider retirement.” "You were after the period covered by these charges elected as a member of the European Parliament. You campaigned vigorously to help your constituents say people who have written testimonials. "Nevertheless the offences of which you have been convicted can only be visited by custodial sentences, nothing else would be appropriate. Because of the dates spanned there is no power to suspend the sentences, there is nothing in this case which would justify exceptional circumstances. The
Court of Appeal has said that because of prison overcrowding prison will be more difficult to serve. I take into account your age and everything said on your behalf. "The appropriate sentence is nine months imprisonment on each (count), to run concurrently."
Mote will be serving his sentence in Winchester Prison.
Reporting by David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip PA and Miss Tina Astley
Additional reporting
Lynda Roughley

ITS watch

Montag, 19. November 2007

ITS ceases to exist

Amendments proposed by ITS

Mittwoch, 14. November 2007

Written about ITS Group

Montag, 1. Oktober 2007

Motes excuses at his webpage

Donnerstag, 13. September 2007

The trial of Ashley Mote, Member of the ITS Bureau

A Summary - Crown v Ashley Mote (16 Jul–17 Aug 07)

Mittwoch, 12. September 2007

ITS group formed

Blog-Archiv

Über mich