Fraudster Anne Darwin set to pay back £600,000
Nov 12 2009 by Rod Minchin, The Journal
The former doctors’ receptionist claimed during her trial that she was forced into the scam by her husband. But a jury did not believe her and found her guilty on all counts.
Earlier this year the couple both lost appeals against their jail sentences.
The hearing heard that financial investigators had assessed that the Darwins had benefited to the sum of £679,194.62 from the fraud.
However, the realisable assets totalled £591,838.25, prosecutor Jolyon Perks said.
“John Darwin being a person of no assets, it is not possible to make any order against him apart from a nominal amount,” Mr Perks said.
He suggested Mr Darwin should repay £1, with Mrs Darwin facing a bill for £591,838.25.
Mr Perks went on to ask for a year for the money to be repaid. If either fails to repay they could face a three-year jail sentence. Mr Perks detailed the sums of money the victims of the Darwins fraud were deprived of, plus interest.
Insurance giant Aviva, which used to be known as Norwich Union, was defrauded of £200,158.06 when the Darwins made a claim on a mortgage insurance policy. AIG was conned out of £40,603.01 when the couple cashed in a life insurance policy.
The Darwins also made claims on Mr Darwin’s prison pension of £84,447.64, his teaching pension of £34,217.70 and a Department of Work and Pensions payout of £4,273.60.
This totalled £363,700.01 and the Crown is seeking an order against the Darwins to repay this money. The Crown was also seeking an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act for £228,138.24.
Mr Perks told Mr Justice Wilkie: “I have provided the court this morning a schedule which sets out the total benefit and the realisation of the monies that the Crown would ask your Lordship to make a confiscation order today. This matter is agreed by the representatives of both John and Anne Darwin.”
Mr Darwin was represented by Peter Makepeace. He said: “Mr Darwin is fully aware of the applications and he does not contest them and is content for the court to make the orders.”
