NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3564533.stm


PA convicted of £4.3m bank fraud


Mrs De-Laurey denied all the charges
A personal assistant has been convicted of plundering millions of pounds from her bosses in a City bank.
Joyti De-Laurey, 35, stole £4.3m to enjoy a lavish lifestyle which included luxury cars, villas and designer gems.

Southwark Crown Court heard she even told her bosses at Goldman Sachs she had cancer to help gain sympathy.

But, aided by her mother and husband who laundered the cash, De-Laurey forged cheques and switched the money into her own accounts.

By the time her life of crime came to light, she had transferred more than £2m to Cyprus.

Part of that was to buy the luxuriously appointed Villa Almas, near Paphos, which came complete with a new Range Rover.



That was to form yet another addition to her growing stable of top-of-the-range cars, comprising a Saab convertible, a Chrysler Grand Voyager and a Volkswagen Golf.

The defendant's mother, Dr Devi Schahhou, a 68-year-old GP of Hampstead, north-west London, was also convicted of four counts of money laundering.

But De-Laurey's husband Anthony, a 50-year-old former chauffeur, was convicted by the same jury of four counts of money laundering and acquitted on four other related charges.

The jury took more than three days to convict De-Laurey, from North Cheam, Surrey, of four counts of using a false instrument and 16 counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception between 15 February 2001 and 26 April 2002.


De-Laurey spent £175,000 on an Aston Martin

The total of value of her fraud was £4,303,259.

The court was told De-Laurey, who was convicted by a majority of 11-1 on each count, went on what the prosecution described as "astonishing" spending sprees.

The secretary claimed she was allowed by her bosses to take the money for her "indispensable services" such as covering up for one banker's extra-marital affair.

The prosecution said De-Laurey stole £1.1m from a New York investment account belonging to Jennifer Moses and her husband Ron Beller, who worked at blue chip investment bank Goldman Sachs.

It also said she then took more than three times that amount from their successor, Edward Scott Mead.


Husband Anthony De-Laurey helped launder cash

A statement issued by Mr Mead said: "I'm pleased and relieved this long saga is now over and everyone affected can now get on with their lives.

"Joyti De-Laurey has mounted a vindictive and implausible defence in which she and her team of lawyers attempted to put the victims on trial."

Her downfall only came when Mr Mead was examining his bank accounts himself with a view to making a donation to his former college in May 2002.

He found the balance of income on the accounts to be much lower than it should have been.



The money had been siphoned by De-Laurey - who spent nearly £18,000 on one trip to Cartier jewellers.

Stuart Trimmer, prosecuting, said she also bought new cars for relatives and ordered a £175,000 Aston Martin and a £150,000 power boat, neither of which was delivered.

More money went on designer clothes and travel bills and more than £2,000 paid for flying lessons.


Mr Mead said he felt he had been "put on trial"

The court heard that within months of starting work for Mrs Moses at £28,000 a year plus bonuses, De-Laurey was proving indispensable on both business and personal fronts.

She made out cheques for them to sign and paid their many bills, made personal shopping appointments for Mrs Moses, booked waxing sessions for her and arranged holidays.

Added to her undoubted efficiency was the sympathy she got from claiming she had cancer.

These factors combined to weave a tapestry of trust behind which she stole at will, beginning in June 2000.

When Mr Mead became her boss, De-Laurey once again employed her forgery skills to copy his signature on a string of transfer authorities to siphon up to £2.5m at a time from supposedly secure New York investments.

The prosecution said that it intended to launch confiscation of assets proceedings against the three defendants.

De-Laurey was refused bail and will be held in custody until she is sentenced on 14 June along with her mother and husband.





I have many thoughts about this.
If you can steal 2 million from someone without them noticing, they probably don't deserve to have it.

I'd support her more if she gave more of it away, though.

I don't see how you could support her anyway. Sure her bosses might of been saps, but she is still a devious woman who stole in inordinate amount of money for solely personal gain. It would be like supporting a mass murderer for helping to cut down on global overpopulation.

I don't see how you could support her anyway. Sure her bosses might of been saps, but she is still a devious woman who stole in inordinate amount of money for solely personal gain. It would be like supporting a mass murderer for helping to cut down on global overpopulation.


She stole money, but from people so greedy they didn't even notice that they had lost 2 million. Is theft really wrong from someone so rich- so rich the theft has absolutely ZERO effect on their lives?


I wish I was her, but I'd have stolen it and donated it all to charity.

Its worth noting that 1 juror quit on the first day, saying she'd never be able to find the woman guilty because the plaintiff was so disgustingly rich.

Jurors are not supposed to decide if a person was "morally right" in thier actions. They are supposed to determine if the person broke the law, which Mrs De-Lauery did. On top of this she did it in a henious way, exploting the sympathies of others for personal gain.

She's fine by me. ^_^

Jurors are not supposed to decide if a person was "morally right" in thier actions. They are supposed to determine if the person broke the law

actually, juries can decide to find some one innocent even when they are clearly guilty of breaking the law. its called jury nullification. iirc, that's how freedom of the press was established.

and knowing that you have that right is usually enough to get you out of jury duty...

(This is a Skeelzanian clone)

Note, I said "supposed to". I never said Jurors actually do thier job properly.

Obviously they knew the money was missing, otherwise, how was she prosecuted?

She stole. Plain and simple. She took something that wasn't hers. Even if she gave it away, it wasn't hers to do whatever she wanted with it.

So what if they were "disgustingly rich"? How does that chage the fact she is a theif? I don't see why that should bias the jury. Of course they were rich. How do you steal from someone with no money?

(This is a Skeelzanian clone)

Note, I said "supposed to". I never said Jurors actually do thier job properly.

but technically, ruling on the law itself is part of the job of jurors.

How are these the actions of a folk hero? These are the actions of a thief, pure and simple.

How are these the actions of a folk hero? These are the actions of a thief, pure and simple.

'Tis a genius. She is.

I have many thoughts about this.
If you can steal 2 million from someone without them noticing, they probably don't deserve to have it.

I'd support her more if she gave more of it away, though.

You support her? why? because she stole from a bank?

What if she was conning alzheimer's patients out of their money? Surely, they wouldn't notice... so i guess that makes it okay? That's just plain sick.

It doesn't matter who you steal from. Theft is still theft.

The only thing that stood out for me in this article is how it called a Chrysler Grand Voyager a "top-of-the-line" vehicle. Heh.

Theft is theft.

And I'm personally against the jury system anyway.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3564533.stm


PA convicted of £4.3m bank fraud


Mrs De-Laurey denied all the charges
A personal assistant has been convicted of plundering millions of pounds from her bosses in a City bank.
Joyti De-Laurey, 35, stole £4.3m to enjoy a lavish lifestyle which included luxury cars, villas and designer gems.

Southwark Crown Court heard she even told her bosses at Goldman Sachs she had cancer to help gain sympathy.

But, aided by her mother and husband who laundered the cash, De-Laurey forged cheques and switched the money into her own accounts.

By the time her life of crime came to light, she had transferred more than £2m to Cyprus.

Part of that was to buy the luxuriously appointed Villa Almas, near Paphos, which came complete with a new Range Rover.



That was to form yet another addition to her growing stable of top-of-the-range cars, comprising a Saab convertible, a Chrysler Grand Voyager and a Volkswagen Golf.

The defendant's mother, Dr Devi Schahhou, a 68-year-old GP of Hampstead, north-west London, was also convicted of four counts of money laundering.

But De-Laurey's husband Anthony, a 50-year-old former chauffeur, was convicted by the same jury of four counts of money laundering and acquitted on four other related charges.

The jury took more than three days to convict De-Laurey, from North Cheam, Surrey, of four counts of using a false instrument and 16 counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception between 15 February 2001 and 26 April 2002.


De-Laurey spent £175,000 on an Aston Martin

The total of value of her fraud was £4,303,259.

The court was told De-Laurey, who was convicted by a majority of 11-1 on each count, went on what the prosecution described as "astonishing" spending sprees.

The secretary claimed she was allowed by her bosses to take the money for her "indispensable services" such as covering up for one banker's extra-marital affair.

The prosecution said De-Laurey stole £1.1m from a New York investment account belonging to Jennifer Moses and her husband Ron Beller, who worked at blue chip investment bank Goldman Sachs.

It also said she then took more than three times that amount from their successor, Edward Scott Mead.


Husband Anthony De-Laurey helped launder cash

A statement issued by Mr Mead said: "I'm pleased and relieved this long saga is now over and everyone affected can now get on with their lives.

"Joyti De-Laurey has mounted a vindictive and implausible defence in which she and her team of lawyers attempted to put the victims on trial."

Her downfall only came when Mr Mead was examining his bank accounts himself with a view to making a donation to his former college in May 2002.

He found the balance of income on the accounts to be much lower than it should have been.



The money had been siphoned by De-Laurey - who spent nearly £18,000 on one trip to Cartier jewellers.

Stuart Trimmer, prosecuting, said she also bought new cars for relatives and ordered a £175,000 Aston Martin and a £150,000 power boat, neither of which was delivered.

More money went on designer clothes and travel bills and more than £2,000 paid for flying lessons.


Mr Mead said he felt he had been "put on trial"

The court heard that within months of starting work for Mrs Moses at £28,000 a year plus bonuses, De-Laurey was proving indispensable on both business and personal fronts.

She made out cheques for them to sign and paid their many bills, made personal shopping appointments for Mrs Moses, booked waxing sessions for her and arranged holidays.

Added to her undoubted efficiency was the sympathy she got from claiming she had cancer.

These factors combined to weave a tapestry of trust behind which she stole at will, beginning in June 2000.

When Mr Mead became her boss, De-Laurey once again employed her forgery skills to copy his signature on a string of transfer authorities to siphon up to £2.5m at a time from supposedly secure New York investments.

The prosecution said that it intended to launch confiscation of assets proceedings against the three defendants.

De-Laurey was refused bail and will be held in custody until she is sentenced on 14 June along with her mother and husband.





I have many thoughts about this.
If you can steal 2 million from someone without them noticing, they probably don't deserve to have it.

I'd support her more if she gave more of it away, though.

:lol:
It's like that guy who worked for MI5 that bought himself a village instead of helicopters for the army...

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

This is a hypothetical question in which they have exhausted every other means.

Besides, I can't think of too many other options they might have that arent' also considered wrong.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

This is a hypothetical question in which they have exhausted every other means.

Besides, I can't think of too many other options they might have that arent' also considered wrong.

There are numerous charitable organizations that will provide a family in need with clothing, shelter, food, etc. And I know that my uncle, who owns a small deli, would never turn away a homeless person who came in asking for food. There are plenty of people who would easily give that loaf of bread if they knew the circumstances.

I think we all like the idea of a modern day Robin Hood, but the idea of it is much sweeter than the reality. People are inherently evil, I've always believed, so regardless of what anyone tells you, they would be thieving to keep themselves in condoms and smokes, rather than to feed the poor and downtrodden.

That said, if I was starving to death, or I saw someone who was, I wouldn't hesitate to rob and steal to see them or me get a bite. No one deserves to starve, especially when there's food right there, and the only thing between you and it is a sixty year old man watching the Simpsons behind the counter.

"SNATCH AND RUN YA'LL"

Word.

Her *anker bosses earned several million pounds a year for doing a valueless job (moving money around from one rich man's account to another), spent half a million on a single party, paid her £25,000 a year , didn't notice a few million pounds missing from their bank accounts and were surprised to find out that despite being "the best secretary" they'd ever had she wasn't honest ... Perhaps they should also be put on trial for being criminally stupid and irresponsible ...

I don't see how you could support her anyway. Sure her bosses might of been saps, but she is still a devious woman who stole in inordinate amount of money for solely personal gain. It would be like supporting a mass murderer for helping to cut down on global overpopulation.


She stole money, but from people so greedy they didn't even notice that they had lost 2 million. Is theft really wrong from someone so rich- so rich the theft has absolutely ZERO effect on their lives?


I wish I was her, but I'd have stolen it and donated it all to charity.

Its worth noting that 1 juror quit on the first day, saying she'd never be able to find the woman guilty because the plaintiff was so disgustingly rich.

You and I would have been heroes then, Pyrenees. I'd do the same.
She is just like her boss, one thief stealing from another.

I don't see how you could support her anyway. Sure her bosses might of been saps, but she is still a devious woman who stole in inordinate amount of money for solely personal gain. It would be like supporting a mass murderer for helping to cut down on global overpopulation.


She stole money, but from people so greedy they didn't even notice that they had lost 2 million. Is theft really wrong from someone so rich- so rich the theft has absolutely ZERO effect on their lives?


I wish I was her, but I'd have stolen it and donated it all to charity.

Its worth noting that 1 juror quit on the first day, saying she'd never be able to find the woman guilty because the plaintiff was so disgustingly rich.

You and I would have been heroes then, Pyrenees. I'd do the same.
She is just like her boss, one thief stealing from another.


I'm going STRAIGHT to PA College. :D

Seriously, if she HAD given all/ most of the money to charity, Robin Hood style, what would have happened to her? Would her bosses even press charges, or would it be too embarrassing? And what would the British Public think?

Seriously, if she HAD given all/ most of the money to charity, Robin Hood style, what would have happened to her? Would her bosses even press charges, or would it be too embarrassing? And what would the British Public think?

Damn you Pyrenees, I wanted to mention Robin Hood :sulk:

Seriously, if she HAD given all/ most of the money to charity, Robin Hood style, what would have happened to her? Would her bosses even press charges, or would it be too embarrassing? And what would the British Public think?

Damn you Pyrenees, I wanted to mention Robin Hood :sulk:

hahaha. One of my favorite musicians is Woody Guthrie, and he had a song about an outlaw like him-


If you'll gather 'round me, children,
A story I will tell
'Bout Pretty Boy Floyd, an outlaw,
Oklahoma knew him well.
It was in the town of Shawnee,
A Saturday afternoon,
His wife beside him in his wagon
As into town they rode.

There a deputy sheriff approached him
In a manner rather rude,
Vulgar words of anger,
An' his wife she overheard.

Pretty Boy grabbed a log chain,
And the deputy grabbed his gun;
In the fight that followed
He laid that deputy down.

Then he took to the trees and timber
To live a life of shame;
Every crime in Oklahoma
Was added to his name.

But a many a starving farmer
The same old story told
How the outlaw paid their mortgage
And saved their little homes.

Others tell you 'bout a stranger
That come to beg a meal,
Underneath his napkin
Left a thousand dollar bill.

It was in Oklahoma City,
It was on a Christmas Day,
There was a whole car load of groceries
Come with a note to say:

Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.

Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

This is a hypothetical question in which they have exhausted every other means.

Besides, I can't think of too many other options they might have that arent' also considered wrong.

There are numerous charitable organizations that will provide a family in need with clothing, shelter, food, etc. And I know that my uncle, who owns a small deli, would never turn away a homeless person who came in asking for food. There are plenty of people who would easily give that loaf of bread if they knew the circumstances.

Okay, Let's say that there were also no nice people around to give them this food. Is it okay for them to steal a single loaf of bread from the richest merchant in town, with him not noticing it?

(This is a Skeelzanian clone)

Note, I said "supposed to". I never said Jurors actually do thier job properly.

but technically, ruling on the law itself is part of the job of jurors.
Naw. The judge interprets the law by ruling on various procedural and evidentiary issues and in the instructions he gives to the jury. The job of the jury is to be finders of fact.

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

This is a hypothetical question in which they have exhausted every other means.

Besides, I can't think of too many other options they might have that arent' also considered wrong.

There are numerous charitable organizations that will provide a family in need with clothing, shelter, food, etc. And I know that my uncle, who owns a small deli, would never turn away a homeless person who came in asking for food. There are plenty of people who would easily give that loaf of bread if they knew the circumstances.

Okay, Let's say that there were also no nice people around to give them this food. Is it okay for them to steal a single loaf of bread from the richest merchant in town, with him not noticing it?
Hey, Zulfikar Bhutto once said that Pakistan WILL build a nuclear bomb, and that Pakistanis will eat grass, if that's what it takes. So I don't see why the obsession with bread, when there's so much greenery around (twigs with marmite...mmm) :wink:

As a practical matter, do you really think that the store owner would press charges against a hungry person who snatched a loath of bread, or, if he does press the charges, that law (at least in Western nations) mandates severe punishment for such petty theft?

I know it's a completely different situation, and far too overdone, but if your family is starving and you have no money, and the only way to feed them is to steal a loaf of bread, is it wrong to steal that loaf of bread?

By the laws of the land: Yes.

So that family should be allowed to die? There's no such thing as a black and white question. There are certain circumstances under which certain things that are usually wrong are actually right.

Yes, it's wrong, because there are plenty of things that family can do before resorting to robbery.

This is a hypothetical question in which they have exhausted every other means.

Besides, I can't think of too many other options they might have that arent' also considered wrong.

There are numerous charitable organizations that will provide a family in need with clothing, shelter, food, etc. And I know that my uncle, who owns a small deli, would never turn away a homeless person who came in asking for food. There are plenty of people who would easily give that loaf of bread if they knew the circumstances.

Okay, Let's say that there were also no nice people around to give them this food. Is it okay for them to steal a single loaf of bread from the richest merchant in town, with him not noticing it?
Hey, Zulfikar Bhutto once said that Pakistan WILL build a nuclear bomb, and that Pakistanis will eat grass, if that's what it takes. So I don't see why the obsession with bread, when there's so much greenery around (twigs with marmite...mmm) :wink:

As a practical matter, do you really think that the store owner would press charges against a hungry person who snatched a loath of bread, or, if he does press the charges, that law (at least in Western nations) mandates severe punishment for such petty theft?

It's not a question of the punishment, the question is whether or not it's right.