LouisVuitton scam sisters stole IDs to pocket £240k
THREE sisters have been jailed after stealing wealthy tourists’ details to make £240,000 of fake tax refund claims for luxury goods.
Yuan Ting Yue, 27, who worked on the Louis Vuitton counter at Selfridge’s in Manchester, would take passport details from overseas customers whenever they submitted legitimate tax reclaim forms, a court heard.
She then used the identities to complete false claims for non-existent purchases of luxury bags, shoes and wallets. Yuan Ting passed the forms to her sisters, Yuan Yee and Yuan Ling, who worked at duty free shops at Manchester Airport. The fraud enabled the sisters to acquire £239,794 in VAT refunds between June 2016 and February 2017.
The most expensive claim was for a £4,050 Louis Vuitton Capucines handbag. Claims were also made for further handbags plus Louis Vuitton wallets, worth up to £940 each, scarves and belts.
Judge Anthony Cross, QC, condemned ‘failings’ in the government’s Retail Export Scheme – which allows visitors from non-EU countries to claim back VAT on consumer items worth over £30 bought in UK. The scam was uncovered when the UK Border Force, which manages the scheme, became suspicious over numerous claims being made to the same bank accounts.
Manchester Crown Court heard officials passed on details to tax fraud investigators who raided the family’s address in Salford, Greater Manchester.
They found Yuan Ting’s laptop contained a spreadsheet with details of family bank accounts and how much cash had been repaid. Payments had been made to at least nine family members. The sisters claimed the money was used to pay their father’s gambling debts.
Yuan Ting was jailed for two years and six months, while Yuan Yee, 32, and Yuan Ling, 29, were each jailed for 15 months.
The sisters, who have no previous convictions, admitted conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. They have since paid back £113,000.
Sentencing, Judge Cross told them: ‘This was a serious fraud and all three of you took advantage of obvious failings in the management of this scheme.’
The judge acknowledged defence submissions that the sisters committed the fraud to help pay off their father’s gambling debts but added that there was a ‘significant element of greed’.