Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud - attempted fraud.

[2013]JRC119

Royal Court

(Samedi)

19 June 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Marc Leander Reeves

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Reeves, also known as Macintosh, held himself out as being able to sell and renovate properties in Brittany, using a number of business names (Sever SARL, Prado Ltd, Brittany2U).  Purported to sell and renovate properties he either did not own or which were encumbered by judicial hypotheques preventing them from being sold.  Total sum involved £267,683 - sum actually obtained £244,422 - from five individuals or couples between 2002 and 2006.  Reeves/Macintosh had a number of bank accounts in Jersey and all financial transactions took place in the Island.  Victims had no previous experience of French property transactions and little or no understanding of French contract terms; Reeves acted as "interpreter" but avoided important paragraphs.  Once the victims raised concerns Reeves would thereafter either ignore their calls and correspondence or prevaricate with excuses and hollow promises.  Often assured them if his integrity and that information they were receiving indicating otherwise was "utter rubbish", prolonging their worries for years.  Most victims were either retired or near retirement, and some have either had to return to work or delay their retirement.  Reeves had befriended all victims initially and was well aware of the effect of these frauds.  Reeves had caused them all enduring hardship.  Victim in Counts 1 and 2 managed to recoup approximately £6,000 between 2005 - 2007 but unlikely that any other monies would be recovered for benefit of any of the victims. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas on Indictment.  Unmarried but had been living with a partner in the Isle of Wight for 2½ years having left his French partner and their two teenage children. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Total: 3½ years' imprisonment.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court observed that Reeves' dishonesty had caused great distress, both financial and emotional, that the victims had lost money they could ill afford which was having a drastic effect on their retirement. 

Conclusions granted.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. A. Corbel for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        You defrauded five individuals or couples of some £244,433 and you tried to defraud them of a further £23,250.  You did this for a long period, over some 4-5 years.  You told them that you were able to sell and renovate properties in Brittany, when in fact you were not in a position to sell them, either because you did not own the property in question or because there were judicial hypothecs preventing them from being sold.  Apart from some £6,000, nothing has been recovered and it would seem that there is little prospect of much recovery, although we hope very much that your advocate will pass across full details of the properties so as to assist any possible recovery.

2.        These people who trusted you and whom you had befriended paid over money in good faith and got nothing in return.  Your dishonesty has caused immense distress.  We hope that you have read the victim impact statements from some of your victims, as we have.  They have lost money that they could ill-afford; some of them were elderly and the loss of the money which you took from them has impacted drastically upon their retirement.  To quote from one of them:-

"We are unsure of the future and how much financial security we will have ... The anxiety, stress and depression that he has caused to happen to us has almost brought us to breaking point.  It is only by the grace of god that we are still together.

...

It has also impacted on our family life, and made relationships strained at times."

So we hope you appreciate, not just the financial loss that you have caused, but the emotional distress.

3.        We take into account in mitigation the fact that you have pleaded guilty and have spared them from giving evidence.  We also take into account your good character, you have no previous convictions of any sort.  We have read your letter and we have read the references and we note the remorse which you express.  But given what you have done there is no alternative to prison and your counsel and you have very realistically accepted that.  We have been referred to a number of cases and we have considered them but in our judgment the Crown's conclusions make every allowance for all the mitigation which is available and are correct.

4.        The sentence on all the counts is 3½ years' imprisonment concurrent on each count.

Authorities

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Courts of Jersey.

Bryce-Richards-v-AG [2006] JLR N16.

AG-v-Barnett-Roberts [2013] JRC 042B.

AG-v-Renouf 2001/125.

AG-v-Cameron and Others [2012] JRC 177.

R-v-Barrick (1985) 81 Cr. App. R. 78.