• March 28, 2024
 Trusted Carer Jailed For Exploiting Vulnerable Victim

Trusted Carer Jailed For Exploiting Vulnerable Victim

A carer with previous criminal convictions for dishonesty offences has been jailed for attempting to defraud over £60,000 from the 65-year-old vulnerable man with extreme learning difficulties she was employed to help.

June Sanderson, also 65 and living in Scarborough, gained unconditional trust of her ‘highly suggestible’ victim, gaining access to his banking information, setting up online banking, forcing a sale of his property and using her newfound powers to steal vast amounts of the man’s modest savings.

Having started working for the man in 2010, Sanderson became aware that her new patient’s mother had died in 2007 leaving the man a mortgage free flat and substantial cash assets in order to set him up for the remainder of his life.

Instead, this money placed a target on the vulnerable man’s back and Sanderson spent the next five years gaining his complete and unequivocal trust and plotting ways of benefiting herself.

In February or March of 2015, the jury heard that Sanderson had her patient’s flat valued and even researched the various options in regards to the equity in the property.

During October 2015, Sanderson convinced the victim to sell his flat as it required new fire doors. Throughout the sales process, the unscrupulous carer played a leading role, including accepting the first offer the property received that was worth around £86,000.

At the same time, an online bank account was created for the victim by Sanderson on the understanding that he was unable to and did not understand how to use it. It was at this point that her desire to steal from the man became an active and unrelenting quest.

Before the sale completed in November 2015, Sanderson used her victim’s money to place a £12,000 deposit on a brand-new Nissan Juke. Fully intending to retain the money as opposed to the car, Sanderson returned claiming that the house sale had fallen through and she needed a complete refund.

The judge highlighted that instead of changing her mind and refunding the money to her victim’s account, Sanderson was steadfast in her fraudulent activity, requesting the money be refunded to a different card, her personal card.

Unfortunately for her illicit plans, this was refused, and the money was returned to the victim’s Halifax account.

Sanderson then adapted her plan, buying a £13,000 Ford Focus from another dealer with the intention of trying to sell it on at a later date.

The property transaction went through and Sanderson then caused further detriment to her victim by forcing him to move out of his flat and into considerably worse rental accommodation costing him £70 per week.

As the victim’s account increased, so did Sanderson’s attempts to benefit from the property sale. However, she was again scuppered when the man’s internet banking started failing.

Sanderson then forced her victim to enter the local Halifax branch with a note requesting the transfer of £46,000 from his account into Sanderson’s account.

It was only the size of the transfer and the suspicions of the banking staff which led to the decline of the transaction. The man was told to return with his carer to discuss the transaction further.

After returning with a story that she would hold the money in her own account in trust so that the proceeds from the property sale did not interrupt any entitlement the man had to his disability benefits, senior officials within the bank also refused to authorise the transfer.

Despite informing the bank on another occasion that the man owed her money for a new television and unpaid wages, a smaller transfer of £4,000 was also refused.

Having made a lot of public attempts to pilfer money from her victim’s account, Sanderson was charged with three counts of theft by employee and one count of attempted theft.

She was found guilty of stealing £13,000 during the car sale (money that was later returned) and the attempted theft of £48,000.

For her crimes, Sanderson was sentenced to two years and three months custodial sentence and slapped with a ten year restraining order preventing her from contacting the victim in the case or frequenting the area he lives in.

This case highlights a lot more than a dishonest human being exploiting a vulnerable person. It raises questions concerning the safeguarding of adults with learning difficulties and concerns over how a person with dishonesty convictions can enter a profession working closely with vulnerable people.

Charity, Age UK says that 130,000 over-65s in the UK have suffered financial abuse, with a Northern Ireland study reporting a figure of 21% of respondents.

While many older and vulnerable people assume the main threat comes from rogue traders and financial scammers, the reality is that the risk is often closer to home. Age UK believes that 70% of financial abuse is carried out by family members.

Unfortunately, an increase in people abusing their positions as attorneys increased considerably last year. The government carried out almost 50% more investigations concerning abuse complaints regarding lasting powers of attorney (LPA) in 2018.

In total, the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) received 5,245 claims that attorneys were abusing their donor’s finances. This is more claims of abuse than the OPG has ever had to deal with.

Although every case is reviewed, 3,359 allegations of attorneys abusing their position were not considered viable cases that required further investigation.

However, the 1,886 cases that were investigated represented a 50% increase in investigations compared with those carried out in 2017.

As loved ones, people placed in trusted positions and even people placed in legally trusted positions continue to exploit their positions of power, the government need to ensure stricter deterrents are in place to prevent these figures from rising further. Will a two-year stint in prison act as a genuine deterrent that will discourage Sanderson from returning to her dishonest ways once she is released?

Andrew Stubbs QC, Presiding Judge in the case, commented:

“We know that other people had taken money from him (before) and… you decided it was your turn, but on a completely different scale.

“(The victim’s) parents did everything they possibly could for him to set him up for life given the difficulties he faced, but despite their best efforts, you determined that you would try to deprive him of the money… and the flat that had been purchased for him.”

Are vulnerable people offered enough protection and safeguards? How common are cases like this at the moment? How should vulnerable people be safeguarded against attacks like this?

Martin Parrin