RegulationJul 18 2014

Judge demands £14m from convicted fraudster

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by

Edward Davenport, convicted of conspiracy to defraud in October 2011, was yesterday (17 July) ordered to pay a total of £13.9m in confiscation and compensation at a hearing at Southwark Crown Court.

Mr Davenport was convicted, along with eight others, for his role in Gresham Ltd, a company promoted falsely as a long-established, wealthy and prestigious financial organisation capable of lending hundreds of millions of pounds as venture capital.

The accused were handed custodial sentences in 2011, but the firm was set up in 2005, purporting to offer sourcing and provision of commercial funding by way of loans or joint venture capital and charging advanced fee payments for services that the Serious Fraud Office alleged it had no way of delivering.

Mr Davenport was sentenced to seven years, eight months in prison in October 2011, though his sentence was reduced by the court to take into consideration time in which he was subject to a curfew order and time that he was held in custody before being sentenced.

He was also disqualified from acting as a company director for ten years and a Serious Crime Prevention Order was handed down at an earlier hearing.

Judge Testar made orders for costs totalling £1.9m and Mr Davenport was given six months to pay the confiscation and compensation orders and a 10 year sentence of imprisonment in default of payment which is the maximum allowed under the legislation.

Judge Testar said: “The important thing is that in this case nothing has been cut and dried. Edward Davenport has only agreed matters in these criminal proceedings at a late stage.

“For some four years I have had a deep sense that moving matters along in the case has been a truly Sisyphean task, both before during and after the trial.

“Through his dishonesty Mr Davenport has caused harm to many people and it would be an insensitive judge who was not conscious of those whom he has defrauded.

“In the end I have decided that the risk of Mr Davenport retaining some of the fruits of his crime is one that my public duty dictates I should not take.”