THREE BUSINESSMEN WERE CLEARED BY AN OLD BAILEY JU

THREE BUSINESSMEN WERE CLEARED BY AN OLD BAILEY JURY OF THEIR
ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT IN A FRAUD IN WHICH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WHISKEY
WERE BOUGHT WITH STOLEN CHEQUES.

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS MANAGER FOR NESTLES, JOHN HOUSEGO, 55, WAS
ACQUITTED OF STEALING CHEQUES TOTALLING #16,583, AND CHARGES OF
DISHONESTLY HANDLING A TOTAL OF 179 CASES OF STOLEN WHISKEY.

THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY NESTLES’ HQ IN CROYDON FOR PROMOTIONAL
PURPOSES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN USED TO BUY HUNDREDS OF CRATES OF
WHISKY WHICH WERE THEN SUPPLIED TO CASH AND CARRY STORES, SAID MRS ANN
GODDARD, QC, PROSECUTING.

MISS GODDARD ALLEGED THAT HOUSEGO MISUSED THE CHEQUES.

HOUSEGO, OF BLUEHOUSE LANE, LIMPSFIELD, OXTED, TOLD POLICE
THAT ALL THE MONEY HE RECEIVED FROM THE WHISKEY HE SOLD WAS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF NESTLES.

HE INSISTED HE HAD NOT ACTED DISHONESTLY AND TOLD THE JURY:
‘THE MONEY WAS GIVEN DIRECT TO THE RECIPITANTS WHO WERE BUYERS AND
LOCAL MANAGERS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING OUR BUSINESS.

‘
HE ADDED THAT HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT NESTLES KNEW
WHAT HE WAS DOING.

RAJENDRA SHARMA, 51, OF LANCASTER AVENUE, SLOUGH, A CREDIT
CONTROL MANAGER WITH A FIRM UNCONNECTED WITH NESTLES, WAS CLEARED OF
CHARGES OF DISHONESTLY HANDLING A TOTAL OF 524 CASES OF WHISKEY.

HE TOLD POLICE HE HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH THROUGH OUT WAS
UNAWARE THE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE WHISKEY WAS STOLEN.

MINSHULL WHO ALLEGEDLY TOOK PART IN 25 TRANSACTIONS TOLD
POLICE HE HAD ACTED AS A GO BETWEEN COLLECTING MONEY FROM SHARMA AND
PASSING IT ON TO EMPLOYEES OF NESTLES.

HE ASKED IF THE WHISKEY WAS STOLEN AND HAD BEEN TOLD IT WAS
NOT.

HE SAID HE COULD NOT SEE HOW SUCH LARGE AMOUNTS COULD BE
STOLEN ON A REGULAR BASIS.

ENDS.

NOTE: THOMAS BROWN, 54, OF DUKES WOOD, CROWTHORNE, A SPECIAL ACCOUNTS
MANAGER FOR NESTLES, AND JACK BASTOW, 54, OF WETHERBY CLOSE, EMMER
GREEN, BERKS, A MANAGER OF AN ASSOCIATED COMPANY ROBERT A JEWESON, OF
MERTON, HAVE BOTH PLEADED GUILTY TO CHARGES OF HANDLING AND OBTAINING
PROPERTY BY DECEPTION.

THEY WILL BE SENTENCED ON FRIDAY.

ENDS NOTE

BRIAN THIS IS OF NO USE FOR THIS COPYI WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS PART
JUST IN CASE ANYTHING COMES OUT ON FRIDAY IN THE SENTENCES OF THE
OTHER TWO MEN ABOUT THREATS AND SO ON:
FROM HOUSEGO: HE SAID HE KEPT A RECORD IN A LITTLE NOTE BOOK BUT
WHEN THE OPERATION FINISHED ‘I HAD NO REASON TO KEEP IT SO I DESTROYED
IT.

‘
ASKED BY HIS COUNSEL: ‘ARE YOU PREPARED TO NAME NAMES?’
HOUSEGO REPLIED: ‘I WOULD RATHER NOT.

FIRST I AM SCARED.

SECOND, I
DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO THE MEN’S CAREERS.

‘
HE ADMITTED HE HAD GIVEN NAMES TO HIS LEGAL ADVISERS WITH
INSTRUCTIONS THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE USED – NAMES AND AMOUNTS NEXT TO
THEM.

HOUSEGO TOLD THE JURY THE REASON FOR HIS FEARS.

ON THE DAY OF
HIS ARREST ON NOVEMBER 15, 1984, HE WAS IN THE GENERAL OFFICE AND
ANSWERED HIS ASSISTANT’S TELEPHONE WHICH WAS LINKED WITH HIS OWN.

A VOICE HE COULD NOT RECOGNOISE SAID HE KNEW THE ‘OLD BILL
HAS FOUND OUT AND IF ANY INFORMATION WAS DIVULGED IT WOULD BE PAD FOR
BY HOUSEGO’S FAMILY.

‘I AM TOLD I AM SHOCKINGLY IGNORANT BUT I HAD NO IDEA WHO OLD
BILL WAS.

I HAVE SINCE’, HE ADDED.

‘AFTER, I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMEONE IN THE OFFICE.

I ASSUMED
SOMEONE WAS WATCHING ME.

I WAS RATHER WORRIED’.

LATER THERE WERE MORE TELEPHONE THREATS AT HIS HOME.

‘WE SERIOUSLY THOUGHT THE PHONE WAS TAPPED AT ONE STAGE
BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY SENDING OR RECEIVING CALLS.

‘
THE NEXT TIME THE CALLER PHONED JUST AFTER CHRISTMAS HE
SAID:’WE KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED.

DON’T FORGET WHAT WE SAID OR
IT WILL BE VERY BAD FOR YOUR DAUGHTER.

‘
‘I WAS PETRIFIED’, HOUSEGO TOLD THE JURY.

THE NEXT INCIDENT WAS A ‘CLICK AND BUSS’ PHONE CALL SAYING –
‘DON’T FORGET’.

‘THERE HAVE BEEN NONE THIS YEAR’, HE ADDED.

HOUSEGO SAID HE HAD TRIED TO KEEP THE THREATENING CALLS FROM
HIS WIFE BUT WHEN A CLOSE FRIEND ‘BLURTED IT OUT’ SHE ‘NEARLY HAD A
FIT’.

COUNSEL PUT TO HIM (IN CONNECTION WITH IT NOT BEING FAIR TO
NAME THE OTHER MEN): ‘SOME MAY THINK YOU KEPT THE MONEY YOURSELF AND
YOU ARE WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK.

‘
‘I DON’T THINK THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE’, HOUSEGO REPLIED.

HOUSEGO INSISTED HE HAD NOT ACTED DISHONESTLY.

‘AT THE WORST
I ACTED NAIVELY’, HE SAID.

ENDS.