As part of our in-depth investigation into the Kallakis trial, Joanna Bourke talks to Serious Fraud Office investigator Ronan Duff.
For the full feature read Estates Gazette magazine on Saturday or wordpress.egi.co.uk
The past two years have not been the smoothest for the Serious Fraud Office.
Most notably, it came under fire after abandoning an investigation into the Tchenguiz brothers last October. A high court judge accused it of incompetence during its investigation into the property tycoons’ alleged role in the collapse of Iceland’s banks. The brothers are now suing the SFO for more than £200m following the failed investigation.
The conviction of Kallakis and Williams, therefore, couldn’t have come a moment too soon for the SFO, boosting the department’s credibility.
The chief SFO case officer on the Kallakis and Williams case was 41-year-old Ronan Duff. Following the sentencing on 17 January, he said: “This was a persistent fraud that enabled these defendants, Kallakis in particular, to lead the lifestyle of the super-rich. The SFO has been equally persistent in investigating and in ensuring that justice has been delivered.”
Duff joined the SFO in 2008 and in 2009 became an investigative lawyer on the case. In 2011, he became the case manager. Prior to joining the SFO, he was a defence solicitor at Christian Khan.
Here, Duff tells Estates Gazette just how laborious this £1.2m investigation was, before lifting the lid on one of the most “audacious and elaborate scams” he has seen in his entire career.
How labour-intensive was the investigation and how many staff worked on the case?
There was a core case team of five who spent differing percentages of their time on the case depending on the stage it was at. Others assisted at key times, including City of London police, at the searches and interviews.
There was a vast amount of material to go through and a number of interviews to conduct. In total, during the trial there were 84 witnesses, of which 36 gave actual evidence and the remainder were de-warned [the witness’s statement was read in his or her absence] while the trial progressed. It is difficult to give an overall page count of how many documents we had to examine. With the digital material, there were almost 2m files to review and the total amount seized amounted to around a terabyte. In terms of served material, this would be a fraction of the material reviewed. We served around 600 pages of witness statements and around 18,000 documentary exhibits.
During the trial, jurors and the public gallery heard details about forged documents and impersonation. What did you consider the most shocking aspects of the case?
The most striking aspect is the audacity of the fraud. It did have elements of quite a traditional con, but there was a lot of manipulation going on.
We heard about a 2007 meeting in London between the bank and a man who was purportedly representing SHKP and false company stamps used. They had to go to elaborate lengths to deceive, and this really was an elaborate scam.
This case required a lot of SFO manpower and time. How did you feel about the first trial collapsing and a retrial being called?
We managed to get charges brought relatively quickly, with the defendants charged in February 2010 [13 months after the SFO investigation began]. One of the most frustrating aspects for us was having to go to retrial. Agreeing witnesses, getting AIB staff over from Ireland to testify and setting up video links with Hong Kong required a lot of work. To have all that time and effort wasted [and recall witnesses] was very frustrating.
How important is this conviction to the SFO?
The case team put in the hours over the past four years to build a robust prosecution case. There were a number of setbacks beyond our control along the way, which makes it particularly satisfying to have reached this conclusion.
For the full feature read Estates Gazette magazine on Saturday or wordpress.egi.co.uk
