Theft of deposits by estate agent–Payment of deposits into overdrawn business account–Fifteen months a light sentence–‘loud and clear’ warning by court
This was an
appeal by Keith Howard Greenfield, of Ty Gwyn, Beddau, Llantrisant, Cardiff,
against nine sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment (to run concurrently) imposed
on him at Cardiff Crown Court on October 2 1975 upon his plea of guilty to nine
counts of theft.
Mr J Griffith
Williams (instructed by the registrar of criminal appeals) appeared for the appellant.
The Crown was not represented.
Giving the
judgment of the court, PAIN J said that the
counts of theft. He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment concurrently on
each count, making a 15-month sentence in all. By leave of the single judge, he
now appealed against sentence. He started business as an estate agent at Barry
in Wales in 1974. At that time he was 23 years old, and his only training had
been as an assistant in another estate agent’s business. When he set up on his
own, he had personal and business bank accounts, with overdraft facilities on
each for £1,500. As he received deposits for houses he paid them into his
business account, not keeping them separate from other moneys. In doing that,
he was doing nothing unlawful; indeed one cause of his downfall might be that
it was not unlawful to do this very thing. The court regarded the case as a
classic example of how undesirable it was for young men with no proper training
not only to be able to set themselves up in business as estate agents, but to
be in a position to accept large sums of money from the public. The only course
the prudent and honest estate agent could take to protect himself and his
clients was to put deposits into a separate account which had to remain
untouched, come what may. In the present case the appellant drew on sums from
his business account, which included clients’ deposits, for the general purpose
of running his business. An overdraft was run up. It reached a stage where any
cheque issued on the business account would almost certainly be returned unless
there were sufficient funds to meet it. Despite that, the appellant continued
paying deposits into that account and using it for the general purposes of the
business. In this way he was stealing deposits paid by clients.
So far as
estate agency frauds were concerned, 15 months was a fairly light sentence. No
doubt the trial judge had taken pity on Greenfield because of his youth and
inexperience. The present court had given every weight to the plea put forward
for Greenfield and to letters received from members of his family. One
difficulty was that there still seemed to remain a doubt in the family as to
whether what the appellant did was in any way dishonest. Let it be said loud
and clear that any use by an estate agent, for his own purposes, of deposits
placed with him by clients was dishonest. It was quite purposeless for him to
say he hoped to be able to repay the money in one way or another. He was in a
position of trust. It was not his money, and he should not make use of it for
his own purposes. It was because that principle was not clearly understood that
the appellant fell into the grievous position he was in. Having paid due
attention to all the circumstances of the case, the court did not regard the
sentence as one which could be altered.
