Jury acquits ex-company director of £69k fraud

Friday 15 June 2018

A 56-year-old man accused of fraudulently taking £69,000 from a company where he was a director has been unanimously acquitted by a jury after his lawyer argued that evidence from his co-director should be discredited because he is an admitted "fraudster".

Alaric Karl Coombs was facing a trial after pleading not guilty to one charge of defrauding Library Place Investments Limited out of £69,000 in July 2009.

Mr Coombs was accused with Richard David Arthur of having "agreed and arranged to take £69,000 that belonged to a company called Library Place Investments Limited", while acting as directors of that company. They allegedly then paid the £69,000 to a company called Bianco Property Holdings Limited – one of Mr Arthur’s private companies, which was later dissolved on 1 October 2010.

Mr Arthur, who testified in Mr Coombs' trial, was charged with a total of 19 counts and pleaded guilty to a number of them, including the charge of fraudulent conversion he was accused of jointly with Mr Coombs. He will be sentenced on 2 July.

Summing up the prosecution's case, Crown Advocate Nuno Santos-Costa said that Mr Coombs and Mr Arthur had agreed to split the money between them. “The defence says that is not true,” he continued. “The defence case is that Mr Arthur told Mr Coombs [the owner of Library Place Investments Ltd] wanted the money to be routed to her niece in Switzerland through Mr Arthur’s company for some reason.”

The Crown Advocate said the money was never intended to go to the owner’s niece. He said it was hard to believe Mr Coombs never questioned what Mr Arthur said, as he knew him to be dishonest, having backdated documents for the company before.

The Crown Advocate also said that if the transfer of money had indeed been authorised by the owner, it would have been documented in the minutes of a board meeting with the directors. “If Mr Coombs is telling the truth,” he told the jury, “What was the problem in having the meeting to say we have received instructions from the beneficial owner to transfer money to her niece in Switzerland?

“Why is there no record of the meeting, no minute letter, no minute, no email, not even a post it sticker to give the reason? They knew why because if there were to put the truth in the minute it would say, ‘We transferred the money so we could split it'."

Crown Advocate Santos-Costa said Mr Arthur was squeezing every penny and that therefore it was hard to believe he would have agreed to cover deductions made when Mr Coombs left a company they both worked at. Mr Coombs claimed that Mr Arthur had agreed to pay those and reimburse a loan, explaining why he had received a transfer of nearly £34,500 shortly after the transfer.

The Crown Advocate questioned why Mr Coombs paid back the whole £69,000 and didn’t challenge the order of justice he was served. “Why would an innocent man pay back everything?”

“Mr Coombs would have you believe he’s a victim,” he continued.  “He would have you believe he has been duped and conned by Mr Arthur like many others. I just ask you one question: really?”

Pictured: Advocate Olaf Blakeley was defending Mr Coombs.

The defence advocate, Olaf Blakeley, said the evidence didn’t support the prosecution's case. He said it was perfectly plausible that Mr Coombs believed Mr Arthur when he told him it was the owner’s wishes to transfer money to her niece, as it was not out of the ordinary. “At all times he believed it was madame’s wish,” he said.

“He never thought of doubting Mr Arthur’s integrity,” the advocate continued. “Mr Coombs said he trusted him implicitly, he took him at his own word. Five people, all colleagues of Mr Arthur, all told you they took him at his word. They accepted it. They signed documents on his instructions. Yet the prosecution says it doesn’t apply to Mr Coombs.”

Advocate Blakeley said the idea of a deal was nonsense, and so was the three-week gap between the transfer and the payment to Mr Coombs. “The prosecution has to explain the gap. They try and they fail,” he told the jury. He also said Mr Coombs did not need any money and could have borrowed some from various sources if he had.

“The most bizarre thing about the trial is the way in which this has switched,” Advocate Blakeley concluded his address. “In the opening, the Crown Advocate said Mr Arthur is a fraudster, he is a cheat… Then, what they do is they put him in a box and tell you, ‘Now he is telling the truth, believe everything he says and we are relying on him for evidence.’

“…This is Mr Arthur up to his old tricks. He is doing to you what he did to his victims; he is trying to con you.”

The jury returned an unanimous not guilty verdict after nearly two hours of deliberation.