Two experts contracted to boost business and emplo

Two experts contracted to boost business and employment prospects in London dishonestly inflated their success to cheat a Government sponsored project.

Consultancy chiefs Colin Hutchinson and John Thompson submitted fraudulent claims for payment, the money going into the coffers of Business Process Improvements (BPI), to improve the Cleveland-based management firm’s cashflow and profits.

But a routine Government inspection later discovered public funds earmarked for inner-City regeneration work had been syphoned off.

In the 13th week of a trial at London’s Southwark Crown Court, Colin Hutchinson, 41, a partner in BPI, and senior manager John Thompson, 45, dramatically changed their plea and admitted furnishing false information and false accounting between July 1997 and March 1998.

Three charges of conspiracy to defraud between January 1996 and August 1998 were ordered to lie on the file by Judge James Wadsworth, QC.

Hutchinson, of Great Titchfield Street, central London, and Thompson, of Peterborough Road, Leyton, east London, will be sentenced next month.

Another BPI partner, Scott Brown, 38, of Rusts Lane, Alconbury, Cambs, was found not guilty on the judge’s direction of charges of conspiracy to defraud and false accounting.

In total, BPI were awarded contracts worth pnds stlng 1.

5 million as it undertook work in north London.

Mr Jeremy Donne, prosecuting, said the fraud centred on the North London Training and Enterprise Council (NLTEC) which administered millions of pounds of central funds, European grants, and money from the private sector.

‘They did that by making claims for payments from NLTEC which were false,’ he said.

‘False because less work than they claimed for was done, or no work was done at all, or work they completed did not fall under the conditions of the contracts under which they were operating.

‘

The barrister said an ‘integral part’ of the scam was the ‘fabrication’ of details required to support the claims.

‘This was to enable them to be paid, and secondly, to avoid detection of what they were doing.

‘

NLTEC was founded to advertise a range of Government programmes designed to improve business and employment prospects in the area through advice to firms and training of employees.

BPI had its headquarters in Billingham in North East England, and offices in Poole, Dorset, and its London home firstly in Chingford, Essex, and later Enfield.

Brown initially negotiated the work but returned to the North East, to be replaced in London by Hutchinson, who moved from Dorset, and recruited Thompson from the DSS to be his ‘right hand man.

‘

BPI was hired on a rolling contract basis to lend its expertise to the Upper Lea Valley Project – run in partnership by NLTEC and the London boroughs of Enfield and Haringey.

It was a project sponsored with pnds stlng 40 million of Government cash to be spent over seven years under the Single Regeneration Budget.

In addition BPI was employed by NLTEC to run the ‘Cricklewood Corridor’, this in conjunction with Barnet Council and with similar targets.

And, finally, BPI fulfilled contracts for NLTEC retraining schemes known as Investors In People and National Vocational Qualifications, funded with European grants and money from the private sector.

‘You can see how important this money was to, perhaps, struggling and run down Inner City areas,’ said Mr Donne.

He said BLP was required to account for its payments after being given the responsibility by NLTEC which was overstretched when dealing with administration.

But it is alleged that the consultancy falsified figures to be able to claim it had reached targets.

Mr Donne alleged that BPI underperformed from the beginning but continued to claim the full value of contracts.

‘The emphasis and motivation for what they did seems to be to improve BPI’s cash flow and improve profit figures,’ he said.

‘Brown and Hutchinson were partners with direct financial gain.

‘Thompson was an employee – but he was no doubt in furthering his new career and keeping his bosses sweet, and justifying his quite good salary and bonuses.

‘

Mr Donne said NLTEC was persuaded to award later contracts on the apparent successful completion of earlier deals.

‘The Crown allege earlier contracts were far from successful.

‘

In late 1997 the Department of Education and Employment – one of six Government departments contributing to the single regeneration budget – began an inquiry into BPI’s performance and its payment claims as part of its responsibilities.

Investigators visited NLTEC to examine papers and asked BPI to have all its relevant documents ready for inspection.

Mr Donne said: ‘Let’s remember that the contracts all required the retention of evidence of payment claims and work completed for three years.

‘Therefore all such evidence for all the claims should have been readily available.

‘

However, he said it was clear records were ‘woefully inadequate’ and of further concern was most of the documentation available was actually created within BPI itself and there was little third party
paperwork.

‘And there was no evidence at all of some claims,’ added the barrister.

The inquiry continued with extensive meetings, conversations and correspondence.

‘The defendants denied any wrongdoing and blamed lax administration at NLTEC or overwork at BPI,’ said Mr Donne.

‘In other words they may have got things wrong
but they denied being dishonest.

‘

He said ‘unsurprisingly’ the growing concerns were reported to police in February 1998 and it is alleged they discovered a ‘persistent’ fraud operated from the London offices of BPI.

Mr Donne said: ‘It is not part of the prosecution case that no work was done at all.

Work was done, and no doubt to a high standard.

‘

But he said the defendants had ‘consistently exaggerated’ the true position to recoup fees.

ends