Cashier blames gangsters for the great Ladbrokes £1m giveaway

A bookies’ cashier who gave away £1m in three hours claims Eastern European gangsters beat her and threatened to kidnap her son.

Ladbrokes worker Paris Markham, 22, is accused of allowing her ex-boyfriend Aurica Vaduva, 23, and ‘leading figure’ Daniel Constantin, 28, defraud the bookmaker on the afternoon of Sunday 30 June.

Customer service manager Markham accepted the 22 ‘illegible’ betting slips placed by the gang, Wood Green Crown Court heard.

Rather than invalidate the slips, Markham recorded the bets as wins and paid out the money when the race results came in.

The £90 to £95 bets each made between £5,000 and £100,000.

Markham admits assisting the betting conspiracy, but claims she was threatened the criminals on the street on the way to work.

Constantin is not standing trial as he has already admitted conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Corrine Bramwell, prosecuting, told jurors in her closing speech: ‘Ms Markham has accepted that the betting slips were illegible, in breach of policy she personally authorised, or rubber-stamped, those payments, after the races had finished.

‘She knew they were not legitimate bets placed by those customers, she relies on her police interview in which she claims she did what she did as she was acting under duress.

‘We, the Crown, say first that the account she gave in respect of the threats she said she received, are on scrutiny, unfathomable and not worthy of belief.

‘Secondly, they cannot amount to a legal defence of duress, the father of her child Mr Vaduva and Daniel Constantin were in it together.

‘Mr Vaduva was the lynchpin, he, either by my persuasion or even coercion, brought Ms Markam into the criminality.

‘You need to be sure that the threats were ever made, you have seen Google Maps street view of the busy street where she claims to have been threatened over the course of five minutes, during lunchtime, June 2019.

‘There was no CCTV covering the route, no witnesses.

‘If true it is plainly quite a shocking scene, three european-looking men, one fat and two chubby, engaged her in a loud conversation and struck her on the thigh with a wooden stick and threatened to take son away.

‘It is, we say, bizarre to threaten to take away someone’s child, who was, according to a statement by her grandmother, looked after for her while she was at work.

‘She hadn’t made any effort, or taken any action, to ensure her son’s safety.

‘Rather she continued for ten minutes, to walk to work, another half a mile away.

‘She relies on a 4th of July photo on her phone, you may accept it shows a bruise slightly curiously located on the upper inner thigh, you may not be sure of that.

‘Either way, does it support her story, we suggest that her failure to give evidence is significant and undermines the account she gave in interview, if what she claims is truthful, why not give evidence in court?

‘If she is being truthful, when the men drove off, leaving her as scared as she was, why did she not call the police?

‘Why not call her boyfriend? Why not turn around and go home? Why not seek haven at a church or supermarket?

‘Why not call her mother or whoever is looking after her son?

‘Why on earth, if true, did she simply continue to work at Ladbrokes?

‘Why didn’t she utilise the staffguard security facility at the branch, using the safe sentence ‘call area manager’ so they can call police for her? The alarm fob? The fixed panic button under the counter.

‘Even a gentle probing of her account of what she did and didn’t do before paying out is simply incredible, not worthy of belief.

‘One, did Paris Markham act as she did because she genuinely and reason believed that if she did not authorise those ambiguous bets and transfer that money she or her son would be killed immediately or almost immediately?

‘Two, if she did have those threats, did, during those two hours, she have the opportunity to take action?

‘Only if you decide there was or may have been an opportunity to escape or avoid threatening actions, would a reasonable person in her situation, believing what she did ,have done the same?.’

Constantin’s brother’s girlfriend Arabela Stoica, 22, and Vaduva’s associate Somaila Radu, 29, are accused of possessing and laundering the winnings.

Stoica allegedly had two sums totalling £292,538.40 and laundered a further £173,490.

Radu allegedly had £135,556 in his account and laundered a further £20,480.

Markham, of Thomas More Way, Barnet, and Vaduva, of Great Cambridge Road, Enfield, deny conspiracy to commit fraud.

Vaduva denies further counts of conspiracy to conceal, disguise, convert or transfer criminal property; possessing criminal property; and concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property.

Stoica, of Belvedere Road, Leyton, denies conspiracy to conceal, disguise, convert or transfer criminal property; one count of concealing, disguise, convert or transfer criminal property; and two counts of possessing criminal property.

Radu, of Warwick Road, Enfield, denies conspiracy to conceal, disguise, convert or transfer criminal property; one count of possessing criminal property; and one count of concealing, disguise

Constantin, Blythswood Rd, Ilford, has admitted conspiracy to defraud and will be sentenced later.

The trial continues.