Afternoon:
15°c
Jailed millionaires who conned Candys given £200,000 in legal aid
Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor17 Oct 2011
Two millionaire criminals who cheated the Candy brothers in a £6.5 million fraud have been given more than £200,000 in legal aid.
The case is the starkest example yet of suspects being handed financial aid despite having huge assets.
The fraudsters fooled the billionaire property developers into buying a 47-acre Berkshire site, once owned by the King and Queen of Thailand, that was not theirs to sell.
The scam was so well organised that it was not spotted by the Land Registry. The site's owner, a billionaire Saudi sheikh, was unaware that his land had been "sold".
Ringleaders John Mervyn Jones, from Shipton by Beningbrough, near York, and Michael John Downer, of Bartlow in Cambridgeshire, were jailed for six years and five years respectively.
The Evening Standard can reveal that Jones, 65, who has been ordered by judges to repay £2.5 million, has been given almost £150,000 despite owning properties in Yorkshire and Portugal.
Downer, 65, who owns a Cambridgeshire cottage, three cars, two of them Mercedes, and shares in two apartments in Turkey, has had aid of more than £58,000.
Two others jailed over the scam, John Clifford Williams, 68, from Stoke Poges, and Malcolm Congreve Brown, 72, from Farnham Royal, both in Buckinghamshire, have also had legal aid.
The bill for Williams stands at £110,000, even though he owns a cottage in Slough, two cars and a share of a High Wycombe house, and has been ruled by a Reading crown court judge to have made more than £167,000 from cheating the Candys, which must be repaid.
Brown, whose assets include a share of a Slough house, has been given nearly £23,000 in legal aid.
Further lawyers' bills have yet to be submitted, meaning the combined £341,000 legal aid bill for the four is certain to rise.
They had legal aid because their assets were held under "restraint" by the state during their court appearances. That meant they were deemed to have insufficient wealth to pay their own bills.
Max Hill, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said millions of pounds were being wasted and the flawed rules should be changed.
The 2004 fraud against Christian and Nick Candy involved the King's Beeches site in Sunninghill. The profits were banked in Spain, Ireland, Liechtenstein and Britain. The Candys sued the Land Registry, which paid them and HBOS bank
£8 million in compensation, including legal fees.
The Serious and Organised Crime Agency has won confiscation orders totalling more than £3.7 million against the fraudsters. They face extra jail time if they refuse to pay.
Reader views (9)
"A cottage in Slough". These guys need all the help they can get.
- two20, Eastbourne, 17/10/2011 18:13
Report abuse
Firstly good luck to candy bros, also reading what appears some of the more knowledgeable seem to know about 'registered title/property', maybe someone could let the rest of us know.
Or maybe this goes back to when it was all computerised, but still loaded incorrectly with unclear details of properties and boundaries.
Regarding the legal aid freeby - how come?
Blatant lying I reckon , max hill please let us all know what is really going on.
Have soca and confiscation orders ever collected any payback for taxpayer - millions have been won over years , but have any actually been paid.
Around my area some years back, a druglord gangster was nicked but said order against 6 figure value house,wife s name, so didnt payback, as for large cash pile , reportedly found in attic, also seemed to fade away.
No doubt this case wil also fade away and so will legal aid, for some.
- steve rudds, bromley kent, 17/10/2011 17:57
Report abuse
If someone is inside for having defrauded Candymen, where do I send my Fiver?
- Steve, London, England, 17/10/2011 15:54
Report abuse
WHY?
Oh, because the jobsworth who made up the rules for legal aid application didn't engage his brain while cooking them up. As the crook's properties were held under "restraint" by the state while the court case went ahead, they couldn't be sold to pay the legal fees, so the crooks pleaded poverty - and got legal aid.
Only in Britain. Only in backward, barmy Britain...
- Baron von Richtofen, Biggin Hill, 17/10/2011 15:43
Report abuse
We have to make sure these millionaires aren't driven away by our draconian laws. That would be Armageddon.
- Jesus, London, 17/10/2011 15:24
Report abuse
The Candy men might have been de frauded of £6.5 m but due to our wonderful Land Registry the taxpayer would have re funded this sum to them as it is the role of the Land Registy to offer an indemnity for such loss unless it is due to the negligence of the purchaser. In this case even the Land Reg did not spot the problem so they probably picked up this huge tab. The fact is that our registered land system is flawed and wide open to fraud and abuse.
- Jack Spratt, Richmond, Surrey, 17/10/2011 12:30
Report abuse
A clear illustration of why confiscation orders are very often a nonsense leading to extraordinary costs to the taxpayer, all because any and all property is presumed to be criminal proceeds, whether true or not.
- Richard Eader, London, 17/10/2011 12:25
Report abuse
Its important the working and middle class pay they legal expenses.These wealthy Conservatives worked hard for there money.Working class people are better of in jail.
- Ian, london, 17/10/2011 12:09
Report abuse
I would hope the confiscation orders won by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency will result in these fraudster’s properties being sold, with part of the proceeds used to refund the legal aid given.
- Franklin, Thornton Heath, 17/10/2011 12:04
Report abuse
