IUC re undeclared assets (gold jewellery) - help with a question no-one knows the answer to

Debz71

I've been invited to attend an interview under caution next week at my local council offices concerning alleged benefit fraud they suspect I committed some years ago (in 2004 and 2008/2009) amounting to an overpayment totalling in excess of £3,000 for however many months' worth of Unemployment and Council Tax Benefit I claimed during those two periods. I spoke to a solicitor acquaintance last weekend who strongly advised I should attend so as to help determine what new evidence they may have, but I already know they haven't any whatsoever other than what they possess which consists entirely of the uncorroborated word of one person - my sister - who's a cocaine addict, inveterate liar and someone who has a long list of convictions for dishonesty, including benefit fraud which relates directly to this malarkey. I have no criminal record.

I likely will attend and stick to mostly "no comment" replies as I may have blasted myself in the foot by ending a prior fractious three-hour long compliance interview by issuing them a challenge to raise a fraud investigation if they cared to waste more of my time. I know I'm not legally compelled to attend, and I'm as sure as I can be that no court would convict me if they choose to prosecute but nevertheless it's a concern. Also related to this is an unresolved police investigation into my financial circumstances. Five weeks back they searched my home under warrant very thoroughly. To say I was unimpressed would be an understatement. It was evident from the outset they expected to discover a very substantial ("26 kilos of the stuff") hoard of gold jewellery but found none other than two rings and necklace I was wearing. They seized £12K cash from a safe, though, and arrested me on suspicion of handling stolen goods (non-existent gold jewellery) and money laundering (the £12K).

Their questioning was unlike the council/DWP inquisition I'd received previously in that benefits weren't touched upon but they were every bit as interested in the gold I supposedly once had possession of and (they believed) still did and what's more their "information suggested" was the proceeds of crime, and that I may have committed "a form" of probate fraud with regard to my late mother's estate I was joint beneficiary of (along with sis) in 2000 which, they said, could have Inheritance Tax implications as their "sources indicated" I was complicit in not declaring her "£200K cash savings". (No mention was made of any cash sum at the benefits grilling and I rather think vengeful sis deliberately omitted that info from them.) It was simplicity to satisfy the lead detective that the cash taken was legitimately earned but am increasingly frustrated by delays in its return.

The focus of the compliance interview in July centred on my finances throughout those Unemployment/Council Tax Benefit claims in 2004 and 2008/9. The DWP fella, whose sneering manner annoyed me no end, kept insisting they had information I came in to possession of "a very substantial" amount of gold jewellery in 2000 and retained ownership of most or all of it throughout the duration of those claims and as its value far exceeded the maximum threshold for claiming anything means-tested and that the claims were fraudulent from the their beginnings. I countered by stating that even if I did have the mythical hoard then personal jewellery is exempt from savings and assets calculations to which he replied it was a "grey area" and particularly so when items are inset with numerous sovereign coins that are bullion and "somewhat different". It's a moot point whether bullion coins contained in rings, bracelets, etc, are considered different or not, but I am frustrated by failing to discover a definitive answer after reading miles of info including decision makers' guides, so if anyone can provide a link to something official on the subject I'd be most obliged.

sportsarb

No advice but I’m sure as hell interested to hear how it ends.

huckster

The crux of the matter is that anyone investigating, only has to provide basic things such as financial records. It is then up to those investigating to review the records provided and decide whether they have enough evidence to provide to those who review whether a criminal offence has been committed. You don't have to answer questions regarding allegations, for which there is no evidence.

As for jewellery, that normally would not be considered for benefits savings thresholds, however, if it only being kept as a way of an investment i.e not worn, then it would be relevant. For example, if you had £20k worth of jewellery/gold which was previously bought as a way of maintaining money, instead of keeping the money in a Bank, then that should be declared as savings. Otherwise you could have people with significant amounts of gold jewellery purely for investment purposes claiming housing benefits etc.

TELLIT01

Some of the terminology used is interesting. "Came into possession of" certainly suggests that the OP didn't purchase the jewellery / bullion. If that is the case it may be that this should have been reported to the relevant authority, because the bullion may have been considered to be capital.
I'm certainly not claiming that the various authorities never get things wrong, but if there is an interview under caution, and the police have siezed a large amount of cash, there are clearly concerns about the actions of the OP at some point.

tomtom256

There are too many what ifs and inconsistencies to offer any real help.

I get the feeling there is more to the story then you are telling as you are sure no court would convict you, so from that I would infer that there is/was some gold at some point that you had.

I would be inclined to do a thorough per-prepared statement outlining the facts of any gold/jewellery you had previously owned, what it was worth, where it cam to and where it went and see what com es of it. i would also get proper legal advice from a benefits lawyer.

tacpot12

You could try complaining to the police about the return of your money; it might be they are dragging their heels for no particular reason, and a complaint might bring a senior officer's attention to the delay. It might be a complaint they can close quickly, and might wish to do so.

Having carefully read the legislation this morning, I can't see that the Council Tax Benefit Regulations that applied between 2004 and 2009 had rules that allowed even personal jewellery to be disregarded. (The current rules for income-based JSA do.) So if you had this jewellery and it was yours, then you should not have been able to claim any Council Tax benefit.

It is very difficult to imagine exactly how a benefits tribunal would define "personal jewellery". In the absence of any case law, I can't really say, other than in strict legal terms I think it means jewellery that is owned by you AND that you could wear on your person. So a man's signet ring could never be part of your personal jewelley; but one might argue that a single singet ring that belonged to your father, could be part of your personal jewellery. If you did have 26Kg of gold jewellery, I think a tribunal would determine that this amount was not "personal jewellery" just on the basis of the amount - whether this is fair and/or correct is something that would have to be argued. If you DID have 26Kg of jewellery, I would like to think that you would not have claimed benefits because it would clearly be benefit fraud, no matter what the "rules" say.

If you did not have this gold, then there cannot be evidence. I can't see that they will proceed on the basis of your sister's word, as they have to prove that you had this capital and they cannot prove it with just her word.

As you have been goaded into making unwise comments in previous interviews, I think the best approach is not to attend. If they do have any new evidence, they will have to release this evidence to you before you go to court, so you will see it if you need to. I appreciate that it might be difficult sit on your hands, but there is nothing you can say that will convince them that you did not have this money EXCEPT for a lack of evidence that you had it - don't do something that would either give them this evidence OR give them hope that such evidence exists.

[Deleted User]

The bit that stands out for me is the 12k they found in your safe, did you ever declare this money OP? either to the dwp or the council?

Debz71

The £12K was removed six weeks ago; the allegations relate to claims made many years prior.

Thanks to all for taking the time to reply.

I wasn't aware different rules applied to the value of personal jewellery in the past, and understand the logic of why they existed. However, as I implied, it's irrelevant from my perspective as my position was and remains that I don't and have never possessed a significant amount of gold jewellery - certainly never more than an estimated 200 grams at any given time comprising of several rings and an 85 gram 9ct curb chain necklace I've worn since my 18th birthday. I managed to bore myself by repeatedly challenging the DWP bloke and months later two police officers to furnish an iota of evidence to support the claims of their mysterious informant, whom I named each time, but they couldn't provide anything other than prevarication.

Having read replies here I've determined to stay mum next Friday even if the same ogre is sat across the table trying to provoke me.

I was more aggrieved by the police's actions in spite of them being perfectly polite and professional. The powers invested in the state's agents armed with a warrant gave them the legal authority to invade my home, and I could do nothing to stop them.

TELLIT01

Your perception, rightly or wrongly, is not what matters when potential fraud is being investigated. The perception of DWP / police is the driver for investigation.

A warrant isn't issued lightly. There must have been good cause to believe something untoward was going on. That's not to say that the information acted upon was accurate. Directly regarding the £12k, if for example you are not working there can be valid questions as to how you accumulated so much cash. It is the duty of the "state's agents" as you call them to do everything possible to recover cash if it is the proceeds of crime.
I must stress that I am not accusing you of anything, simply applying the perspective of a neutral observer.

Debz71

tomtom256 wrote: »

There are too many what ifs and inconsistencies to offer any real help.

I get the feeling there is more to the story then you are telling as you are sure no court would convict you, so from that I would infer that there is/was some gold at some point that you had.

I would be inclined to do a thorough per-prepared statement outlining the facts of any gold/jewellery you had previously owned, what it was worth, where it cam to and where it went and see what com es of it. i would also get proper legal advice from a benefits lawyer.

Yes, there's a great deal more involved than what I outlined. That initial message dragged on a bit and I thought I'd better end it otherwise it would grow to War and Peace proportions.

For more background, my sister and I had a huge falling out early in 2018. I told her never to darken my door again and over the proceeding weeks she realised I was not for turning which meant she'd receive no further financial assistance from me, nor would I house her again when she was in one of her numerous crises. This was precipitated when she was staying with me. I returned home early one day to discover a locksmith trying to open my safe. She had summoned them to open it without my knowledge by pretending to be the homeowner who had mislaid its key.

Offended, she evidently made good on her threats to cause me as much grief as her imagination would allow which has resulted in having strangers pore over my financial history along with our late mother's bank statements from decades ago being produced as if they were smoking gun evidence in a major criminal trial.

As briefly as I can, mother ran a jewellery market stall for many years for up to a year or so before she passed when her health deteriorated. She liquidated all her stock and withdrew the cash in stages, along with other savings she had, in the months preceding her death. The police demonstrated via her bank account records the the sum totalled £200K, and that my share was half of that but I had bagged the lot, supposedly. They also alleged that she had acquired a huge stash of privately held gold jewellery by making cash purchases for items that were sold to her as scrap with no questions asked regarding the identity of the sellers or the provenance of what they sold. They believed most of it originated from home burglaries. Their allegations rested entirely upon the word of their unnamed source. "What became of the cash?" and "what became of all that jewellery?" they kept asking. "I had no idea a pile of cash or a pile of gold ever existed," I kept replying parrot fashion.

Mum's estate totalled £125K: £5K in her current account and her home was valued at £120K. Her £5K life assurance policy didn't form part of her estate. Sis gifted me her half share of the property once it was formally settled. "Why did she gift you her only asset worth £60K when she survived on welfare payments?" they also asked in slightly different ways over and over. I suggested they might direct that query to her on at least three occasions before one stated they already had and she had informed them it was in return for £60K cash I had paid her. In that instant their whole 'our sources' and 'information received suggests' charade ended.

Kay was successfully prosecuted by the DWP in either 2003 or 2004 for not informing them her net worth became £60K in 2000 and that she wasn't entitled to claim anything means-tested from that day to when they caught up with her as she was above the relevant threshold. It was quite a sum, I forget whether it was a £16K or £26K overpayment, but she avoided a spell in clink. She was denied benefits for a considerable period which proved a blessing in disguise as she had to shape up by getting her first ever job and paying her own way. Then once she qualified again she resumed her life of idleness at everyone else's expense as a hopeless drug fiend and with it adjudged too ill to work.

The tale she constructed for the council/DWP didn't involve a giant stack of cash. It concerned gold jewellery only, of which - as with the police - they singularly failed to provide any evidence of its existence. Initially the DWP chap indicated I had sold some of it to pay off sis for her share of mother's property, then somehow years later I had all of it again.

I'll leave an update when next week's over with.

Debz71

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Your perception, rightly or wrongly, is not what matters when potential fraud is being investigated. The perception of DWP / police is the driver for investigation.

A warrant isn't issued lightly. There must have been good cause to believe something untoward was going on. That's not to say that the information acted upon was accurate. Directly regarding the £12k, if for example you are not working there can be valid questions as to how you accumulated so much cash. It is the duty of the "state's agents" as you call them to do everything possible to recover cash if it is the proceeds of crime.
I must stress that I am not accusing you of anything, simply applying the perspective of a neutral observer.

Thanks for that. I agree with your reasoning other than I don't believe the evidence merited a warrant being signed. I'll do my utmost to discover who did sign it to ask them to justify their decision. If I can and do get a response but am unhappy with it I'll question the competency of the person at the highest authority.

The £12K cash taken isn't an issue as I haven't been in receipt of state aid for a long while and the digital trail to it was easily established and accepted.