Woman jailed for biggest ever Social Security fraud

Tuesday 19 September 2017

The full written judgment has now been published in the case of a 59-year-old woman who wrongfully claimed over £100,000 in Income Support over a nine-year period.

Geraldine Bradshaw's offences were described as "the largest sum defrauded from Social Security and the most prolonged period of offending" - she was sentenced to two years in prison, after failing to disclose a Welsh property and numerous bank accounts.

In April 2007, Bradshaw applied for Income Support on the basis of her inability to work for medical reasons. When declaring her capital assets, Bradshaw mentioned one bank account and wrote “none” in the boxes relating to investments and property. In fact, she owned a property in Wales, inherited from her mother in 2001, and also had numerous bank accounts and bonds which held a combined balance of over £32,000. Bradshaw also opened and managed further accounts between 2008 and 2016 but did not declare them to the Social Security Department. Over a nine year period she fraudulently claimed £102,788.37 in Income Support.  

She also received two special payments in October 2008 and January 2012 to help with the costs of dental treatment.  She received £657.50 as well as a £250 loan, which she paid back through income support payment deductions, bringing the total sum wrongfully claimed to £103,725.87.

Bradshaw's offences came to light in 2016 after the Social Security Department received information from an anonymous source. By the time of her sentencing, on 28 July, she had paid back £63,799.91 from her income support payments, leaving £37,533.78 that won't be repaid until February 2033. 

The Court heard that Bradshaw had a significant history of chronic depression going back many years and that this may have impacted upon her ability to make decisions. However the Court felt they needed to impose a deterrent sentence for benefit fraud. Royal Court Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, who was sitting with Jurats Liston and Ronge, quoted a previous judgment which said "cheating the public is really no different in principle (to breaking into someone's house to steal money."

The Commissioner said: "The duration of this fraud, the frequency of it and the amounts involved are just too serious for us to avoid a custodial outcome. There was no issue as to the defendant’s cognitive ability when she filed these forms on a regular basis and over these many years she was actively managing these bank accounts and bonds which she had not disclosed."

Where Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit had moved for three year's imprisonment, accompanied by a compensation order of £37,533.78, Julian Clyde-Smith imposed two years and did not impose any order.