Man Jailed After Keeping £766k of Casino's MoneyOctober 9, 2017 11:26 am
In the past, people have been prosecuted for keeping even small amounts of money found lying around on the floor, with the offense technically known as ‘theft by finding’. One such example is provided by UK woman Nicole Bailey, 23, who this year received a criminal record for not reporting the £20 she stumbled upon on a shop floor.
Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that UK resident Sandeep Singh now finds himself in whole lot of hot water after keeping the £766,098 mistakenly paid into his bank account by the Rubicon Casino in Wolverhampton. Consequently, he will now spend the next 12 months of his life behind bars.
The paying in errors occurred over a protracted period of time between October 2014 and October 2016, and centred around a mix-up involving the ATM cash machine located at Singh’s off-licence in Northampton, and DC Payments Ltd, the company which provides the ATM product and service. According to their agreement, the shop keeper was responsible for keeping the ATM filled with money, with the cash subsequently reimbursed by DC Payments on a regular basis.
In error, however, Singh’s ATM was mistakenly confused with the busy cash machine housed at the Rubicon Casino, with the proprietor then regularly refunded the casinos’ money for two years. After DC Payments eventually realised its mistake, and tried to contact him, the company discovered Singh had already sold his business, and was refusing to take their calls.
Formal proceeding subsequently led to Singh admitting to spending more than £260,000 of the money, including £75,000 buying a house, and a further £80,000 transferred to India. The remainder of the cash has now been frozen in his bank account, and overall around £600,000 should be recoverable.
In court, prosecutor Lynsey Knott drew attention to the fact Singh failed to notify DC Payments of the error, even though there were ample opportunities to do so during regular site visits to his off-license. In the meantime, Singh’s barrister, Martin Liddiard, defended his client by stating:
“The offence came to him rather than he to it and, whilst serious, it would be a shame if he had to spend time in custody and break that work cycle. He no longer has a shop and is working in engineering and IT. The lions share, if not all of it is going to go back.”
Nevertheless, Judge Nicholas Dean QC handed Singh a year’s sentence, described him as a hardworking family man who ultimately let himself and his wife and child down.