Handyman spent £6000 of criminal proceeds

Money turned up in his bank account

A Cambusbarron man who spent more than £6000 of cash which appeared in his bank account following a scam narrowly escaped a jail term last week.

Scott Giles, of Wallace Place, admitted a charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, stating he had used and had possession of criminal property, namely £6313 from the proceeds of fraud.

The office took place at addresses in Stirling’s Almond Court and Murray Place on October 21, 2014.

Fiscal depute Wainwright Craig told Stirling Sheriff Court on Wednesday that a witness named Brown had been a victim of a telephone fraud.

A male reporting to be from the security department of Santander had compelled her to transfer £6313.56 into a TSB account, he added.

Inquiries with the TSB after the offence was reported to the police found the account was Giles’s.

On the day of the theft four separate transactions were made in the Stirling and Alloa area withdrawing all of the £6313.53.

The bank account was closed on November 13, 2014.

The accused was detained, but, said Mr Craig, it was not until November 30, 2017 that Giles admitted being the owner of the TSB bank account, withdrawing the money and spending it.

He told officers that he believed the money had been transferred into the account as a bank error.

There was no suggestion the accused had been involved in the original telephone scam. Mr Craig explained that was why an alternative charge – under the Proceeds of Crime Act – had been accepted. Giles had been the beneficiary of the scam.

Giles’s lawyer, Fraser McCready, told Sheriff MacDonald that Giles had gone to his bank to find that his account was in “substantially greater” credit than he thought and “couldn’t believe his luck.”

However, Giles ought to have known it was criminal property. Mr McCready pointed out: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

The crime had been quickly discovered, but “for some reason” Giles was not interviewed until three years later.

Giles had no outstanding cases before the courts. He is in a longstanding relationship and he and his partner have two children. However, he is estranged from his parents and wider biological family, said the lawyer.

Self-employed, he had also set himself up in a ‘man in a van’ business earning £250 a week.

The time the matter had taken to come to court had been no fault of the accused, said Mr McCready.

The solicitor pointed out that Giles could put something back into society by carrying out unpaid work. He was willing to pay compensation for the sum obtained at a rate of £50 a week.

Sheriff MacDonald put it to Mr Craig that the complainer was bearing the loss of the cash as the bank considered her to be responsible for it – notwithstanding the acceptance that someone had unlawfully obtained the sum not by fraud but by reset.

Mr Craig replied: “Yes. That is the position.”

Sheriff MacDonald told 29 year-old Giles the offence was a serious one given the amount involved and the fact it had been acquired by criminal means which the accused had “quite clearly” benefited from.

He continued: “It is serious because the person whose account this money came from hasn’t seen a penny back.”

Sheriff MacDonald also pointed out that had it not been for the age of the offence he would not have hesitated sending Giles to prison.

“You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity when it came to court. It’s that which causes me to stay my hand and an alternative to custody is available.”

He sentenced Giles to a community payback order comprising two years supervision and 200 hours’ unpaid work to be completed within nine months with a review on October 10.

He also imposed a compensation order amounting to £6000 to be paid within two years.

An alternative to custody is available