Fraud is a victimless crime, just ask Jeffrey

My next blog was going to be entirely different from what follows, so please forgive me, but please, please read the following story and tell me what you think.

Jeffrey Matthews is a nice man; he is an elderly man, he is a sick man, and he is a victim not only of a convicted fraudster but also of a police force. That police force is Dyfed & Powys Police, whose inadequacy and lack of empathy are only exceeded by their disregard for accountability; they have once again failed to address the pressing concerns of the communities they purportedly serve.

Jeffrey had his inheritance and pension stolen by a convicted fraudster named David Vaughan Jones, and there were many other victims not unlike Jeffrey. In fact, Jeffrey’s case was not unlike those in the original indictment cases, yet David Vaughan Jones was never prosecuted for Jeffrey’s case, and he is free to live his life without Jeffrey knowing what he did with his money and leaving him without receiving any of his money back.

Churchgoing bent solicitor turned tax consultant jailed in £1million scam

David Vaughan Jones used to be a solicitor until he was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) on 17th December 1992. A short note on the SRA: despite their boast of transparency, they refuse to say why Jones was ‘struck off’, another example of a self-regulating quango’s service (lack of) to the public. Jones then set himself up as an independent financial advisor; ‘one did not need qualifications in those days’, and his crooked activities began again.

There was also the curious case of another solicitor involved with Jones, she was never interviewed by the police. WHY?

In the beginning, Jeffrey was under the control of Jones as he had won over his confidence to the point that when he was first contacted by Dyfed & Powys Police, he was unsure how to respond. Had they shared with him the extent of Jones’ fraud, he would doubtless have been involved in the first indictment. The fact that Jones was able to persuade a Judge to keep him out of prison for a six-month period on the basis that he said he would be able to repay everyone without any evidence demonstrates his ability to hoodwink people.

As Jeffrey got to know more, he was fully supportive of the police, but the officer in charge of the case, a Mr. Callard, who was not a policeman at all but styled himself as the manager of the fraud department, may have been a policeman once, but whether he was a good policeman is debatable. He took the view that Jeffrey, like at least four other people we know about, was left hanging out to dry. In some cases, the victims were never contacted by the Police in the first instance and had to resort to taking the CPS to a Civil Court to be recognised as victims.

Having settled with the CPS and become recognised as victims through the process, the Police / CPS never prosecuted Mr. Jones for any of the frauds, including that perpetrated by Jones against Jeffrey. Jones was granted early release from prison after serving just 3 years for stealing £1.4m from the original indicted victims; this early release was not dependent upon him disclosing what he did with the victims’ money. Further, Jeffrey was not aware of any efforts to contact the Co-operative Bank (one of Jones’ banks) to reveal how this money was laundered through their bank despite being given Jones’ banking details, and despite the bank being willing to cooperate with the police.

Jeffrey has spent a considerable amount of time and effort raising questions in a desperate effort to get his case properly investigated, and yet he has been led a merry dance by people using a system that protects the people conducting investigations from any real scrutiny. What he needed was a meeting with someone in a senior position with whom he could get answers to basic questions. Instead, he has been met with a wall of silence, and even under this ‘process’, he is none the wiser, nor would he be complaining to the Police Commissioner’s office, for the reasons shown below.

Now, I see that Jeffrey’s MP and his associates, who doubtless have good intentions and have tried to bring the matter to the attention of those within the Police organization, have actually looked at the facts of Jeffrey’s case. Like Jeffrey, even they have just been ‘fobbed off’ with generic responses and talk of following statutory frameworks and then, surprise, surprise, passing matters to the Office of the Police Commissioner, etc. This, of course, gives the appearance that the actions of those responsible for investigating your case will be ‘looked into’ in order to see if they have done so properly.

The fact is that the Police, and presumably Mr. Callard, decided at the outset that Jeffrey was not a victim he wanted to be bothered with, and the more Jeffrey chased and raised questions, the less engagement he received. I don’t see anything in the Police Charter that permits them to treat Jeffrey in any way less than any other victims.

The Police had a duty to investigate, but these people have not done their job properly (or at all for all Jeffrey knows) because there is no evidence to suggest that they have done anything and no engagement with victims. This is why Mr. Jones has got away with stealing millions of pounds, and the Police still have no clue what he did with it. They did not recover any of the stolen money, and Jones served just three years in prison and now gets to keep what he stole (he was probably giving financial advice to the ‘old lags he met whilst ’banged-up’).

The fact that the actual investigation has not been carried out effectively or in a timely manner doesn’t seem to count. In the original prosecution, they established that Jones bought a car for his daughter and paid for an extension to the other daughter’s house. It is also said that Jones even paid for his daughter’s house. Jeffrey is not aware of any action against them under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Is that not what the POCA is for?

I note that a Ms. Starkey of Dyfed Powys Police suggests that it is Jeffrey’s failure to request a review to the Police Commissioner’s office that is part of the problem, and suggesting they might still consider an application. I am sure she knows full well that the review will not look to see if Jeffrey’s case has been investigated properly but it is just part of a box-ticking system that these people use to put real complaints into the ‘long grass’. Why do we have to put up with this disgraceful behaviour? Because the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioners’ role in relation to complaint reviews does not include investigating your complaint. What it does is:

• include impartially considering whether your request for a review was valid.
• whether the outcome of your complaint was reasonable and proportionate.
• identify any recommendations that should be made to the Force as a result of the handling and/or outcome of your complaint.

These are carefully worded mealy-mouthed phrases that make it sound like they have some teeth, but in fact, all you would get back is comments on matters surrounding your case – like how quickly they replied. I don’t think that the Public are aware that the Police Commissioners’ office acts in this way. They do! I used to naively think that it was a role designed to bring accountability to the process.

The reality has been that the Police did not do their job properly and failed to look in the right places at the right time in this investigation. The arrogance of people involved is astonishing, but then you only have to watch the Post Office Horizon scandal to realise that people get away with it because they are not held accountable, and they work the system and ‘close ranks’ to avoid being so. 

In summary I would say Mr Callard you are a disgrace, the whole police complaint process is a disgrace, Dyfed & Powys Police, from the Chief Constable down is a disgrace, and the whole police attitude to fraud is a disgrace that would not be out of place in a third world country.

In conclusion I will leave you with a quote from Jeffrey:

“I think the way that Mr Callard, and the investigation team in Dyfed & Powys have treated me, a 74 year old cancer sufferer – with contempt – and a victim whose inheritance and therefore retirement funds have been stolen, is deplorable. It is akin to the sub postmaster’s dilemma. You can’t get past the ‘fortress walls’ imposed by ‘the system’ in order to get proper justice. Dyfed-Powys Police are not looking after victims of crime – although you say you are on your website. My case and that of others in this case clearly shows you have failed. As a victim I feel as if I have been victimised by the police and ‘the system’. That can’t be right! All of this whilst the fraudster, David Vaughan Jones walks about free in the knowledge that he is safe from further investigation – because he beat you! You gave up! His daughters are now very wealthy from the spin offs – created by your inept investigation. This is beyond doubt.”

Dyfed & Powys Police are you proud of yourselves?