Client Prosecuted for Trainline and Eurostar Fraud in Excess of £500,000 Sentenced to a Financial Order

Our client was one of 8 prosecuted in a conspiracy to defraud Eurostar and Trainline, which was the result of an extensive operation by police. The conspiracy involved fraudulent transactions with Trainline and Eurostar said to value over £500,000. There were said to be 2897 fraudulent transactions with Trainline, between 2019 and 2020. The transactions were for tickets for UK and international travel, sometimes said to be obtained with illegitimate accounts and fraudulently obtained credit cards.

The Case

Our client was charged with two counts of the conspiracy to defraud Eurostar and Trainline, and two counts of possession of articles for us in fraud (possession of false identity documents).

Our client was stopped by police whilst travelling on a fraudulent ticket, and her phone download provided evidence of other links to fraudulent tickets. This came in the form of voice notes, said to show our client arranging the provision of fraudulent tickets, instant messages and images of tickets.

Our Work

Critical data was missing from the served evidence. Full chats, senders and recipients, and dates of messages were not provided by the Crown, such that we were unable to take full instructions. We pursued disclosure of our client’s full telephone download to review this material in context and fill in the missing data so that our client could provide full instructions and the case could be properly prepared.

Due to the amount of material we were required to both obtain and review, preparation of our client’s defence was a significant undertaking. We instructed a telephone download expert to assist us. With further data obtained, we then instructed a linguistic expert fluent in English, French and Lingala to establish whether we disputed any of the Crown’s translations of the voice notes and messages. Instructions were taken on all critical messages, as well as raw banking data and the letters and identification documents connected to our client and seized from her address. We were also able to prove that our client did not have the previous convictions initially alleged by the prosecution.

Poor Service of Evidence

As our client’s trial approached, we continued to criticise the poor service of evidence, forcing the Crown to narrow down the material on which they relied. Counsel Sonal Dashani played a critical part in emphasising that our client’s role, compared to others charged, was minimal. In addition, evidence of our client participating in a conspiracy or interacting with her co-defendants at all, was sparse. These discussions eventually resulted in the Crown accepting guilty pleas to two counts of fraud, rather than proceeding to trial on the conspiracy counts, and dropping the false ID counts entirely.

Plea

These pleas were entered on an agreed basis in which we set out the particular fraudulent transactions for which our client was taking responsibility. This reduced the value of her participation from over £500,000 to less than £3000. This reduced the starting point of her sentence significantly – with a potential initial starting point of 5 year and 6 months imprisonment for fraud coming down to a starting point of a fine. Our client also avoided the near-inevitability of an immediate custodial sentence being imposed on the false identification counts.

Sentence

In preparation for sentence, we analysed our client’s bank statements, providing a full schedule of her outgoings to show the kind of penalty she might be able to afford. We emphasised the delay in these proceedings, with the offences being over 5 years old. We were able to establish, and rely upon our client’s good character, and emphasise her responsibilities and hardship as a working single mother.

Our client received a total financial penalty of less than £3000 and was free to continue her life without the ongoing stress of looming proceedings and a lengthy custodial sentence hanging over her. Needless to say the conclusion of these proceedings was a great relief to her.

The Team

Phoebe Coleman was the solicitor with conduct of this case, she was assisted by Annie Loh. Head of Litigation Amy Cox was the supervising solicitor. Sonal Dashani of 25 Bedford Row was counsel, consistently providing detailed advice, strategic direction and excellent representation throughout the lengthy proceedings.