Judge 'regrets' comments on £200k collapsed fraud trial

Friday 25 October 2019

A judge, who ruled there was no case to answer in a Royal Court trial against a businesswoman accused of defrauding customers of her second-hand clothes firm out of £200,000, has said he 'regrets' implying she could have been charged with other offences.

The newly-elected Bailiff, Tim Le Cocq, mentioned offences such as “fraud” and “obtaining money by deception” when handing down his judgment in the case against Michelle Yuksel, who had been charged with nine charges of fraudulent conversion.

He has now explained he only did so to show the jury he had “to consider the elements of a particular offence”.

On the 11^th day of the trial against Ms Yuksel, the case collapsed when the Bailiff concluded there was no case to answer, following submissions from her defence lawyer, Advocate Ian Jones. 

Pictured: Advocate Ian Jones argued there was no case to answer in the tenth day of the trial.

The prosecution case, led by Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, alleged Ms Yuksel had cheated people in developing countries out of thousands by taking "very large" deposits for orders for used clothing that she never fulfilled in order to plug business and personal debts between 2010 and 2013.

However, Advocate Jones argued that “essential elements of the charges had not been laid out” as the prosecution could not prove Ms Yuksel’s customers had entrusted her with money for a “specific and defined purpose".

The Bailiff concluded that there was no entrustment in the case of a “simple sale and purchase” such as the transactions between the complainants in the case and Parisma Limited or Logistics To Go Limited.

“There was no evidence before the jury that the monies paid to Parisma Limited and/or Logistics to Go Limited had been paid to be used in a specific way other than as simple consideration for a contract of sale and purchase,” he explained. 

Pictured: The trial against Ms Yuksel collapsed in its 11th day.

To illustrate his conclusions, the Bailiff then referred to other offences.

In a judgment published yesterday, he said he regretted making these comments, saying he had no intention to infer Ms Yuksel “should have been charged with offences other than fraudulent conversion and the implication from that would be that she might be guilty of those offences."

“That was not my intention and I regret that I used the words that I did as they have given rise to the inference that I thought that the Crown had missed other opportunities for charges or that in some way the Defendant might be guilty of other offences not charged,” he wrote in his judgment. “I did not intend to express that opinion.”

The Bailiff assured Ms Yuksel was “innocent of all charges until proven guilty” adding he would not have enough information to draw any conclusion of her guilt in any other offences for which she had not been charged. “I therefore take the opportunity to correct that assumption,” he said. “I express no opinion on that issue at all.”

Pictured: The Attorney General was unable to comment further on the trial or its costs "for legal reasons".

The Law Officer's Department issued a statement on the matter this morning.

"At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the Court heard substantial legal argument as to the ambit of the offence of Fraudulent Conversion. The legal argument was not straightforward, and the Court took half a day to consider its ruling. Although the case was withdrawn from the jury, the Bailiff's decision does not involve any suggestion that the prosecution brought the wrong charges, nor that opportunities were missed to bring alternative charges," the statement read, before noting that the full ruling "makes it clear that this was not what the Bailiff intended to suggest".

They said that, for legal reasons, the Attorney General - who Express has contacted for comment and requested the costs of bringing the case to court - was not able to make any further comment on the case "at this stage".

The Police also refused a request to detail the cost of their six-year investigation.

A spokesperson said: "SoJP and the LOD are considering their options following the judgement in this case. As a result, we are unable to provide the information you have requested at this time, less that the Joint Financial Crime Unit commenced their investigation into the case in 2013."