A father and two sons who ran an amusement machine

A father and two sons who ran an amusement machine firm
to swindle the tax man out of at least pnds stlg 600,000 were
each jailed today Thursday.

Edmund ‘Ned’ Ryan, 54, had headed one side of the unregistered
video poker game business and was assisted by his son Patrick Ryan,
23, while Dublin-based Don Ryan – no relation – ran the other.

London’s Snaresbrook Crown Court heard that Ned Ryan’s
eldest son James Ryan, 27, was ‘first lieutenant’ to Don Ryan
who is said to have been the principal financial beneficiary
having cheated Customs out of pnds stlg 419,000.

But Don Ryan was out of the country when arrests were made
and he has never been extradited to face justice.

It took just over six hours of deliberation for a jury to convict
Ned and Patrick Ryan, both of Rockmount Road, Upper Norwood, SE
London, of cheating Customs and Excise of VAT in excess of pnds stlg
209,000 from amusement machines – built by Northern Ireland based firm
Noraut (correct) – between January 1985 and November 1990.

James Ryan, of Lewin Road, Streatham, South London, was found
guilty of a similar charge but dated between January 1987 and November
1990.

Acquitted by the jury of that charge were Manuel Hernandez,
37, of Meltham Way, Rotherhithe, SE London, James Fenlon, 27, of
Madron Street, Walworth, SE London and Mel O’Hara, 31, of Chatsworth
Road, Cricklewood, NW London.

Each of the six defendants had decided not to give evidence
during the six week trial.

Passing sentence Judge Owen Stable, QC, said that the two
operations ran by Ned and Don Ryan ‘were organised from the outset as
a massive cheat on the public revenue.

‘
Judge Stable told Ned Ryan and his two sons, originally from
County Kildare, that they showed ‘utter contempt for the law of this
country, going on swindling the public of this country.

‘These separate swindles were closely linked together and in the
course of these swindles the British public have been cheated of over
pnds stlg 600,000.

‘
Judge Stable described how the fraud ‘extended over a large part
of England’ and often involved Irish publicans or Asians ‘whose
English was wholly imperfect.

‘
He said that the figures that Ned and Don Ryan are calculated to
have ‘stolen in practical terms’ were ‘understated.

‘
Jailing Ned Ryan for three years the Judge described him as a
‘wealthy man’ who probably now had funds in accounts overseas.

Ned Ryan was also fined pnds stlg 150,000 with a consecutive term
of two years to serve in default – and ordered to pay pnds stlg 25,000
towards the costs of the trial.

Jailing Patrick Ryan for nine months Judge Stable said he had
been in a ‘difficult position’ but he knew what he was involved in.

Judge Stable described James Ryan as ‘in charge of Don Ryan’s
operations in this country’ and jailed him for 21 months.

James Ryan was fined pnds stlg 10,000 with a consecutive term of
six months to serve in default – and ordered to pay pnds stlg 5,000 in
costs.

The jury had been told that the two charges faced by the Ryans
reflected ‘the rough division of activity by the two inter-connected
groups.

‘
In his opening speech Mr Gibson Grenfell, prosecuting, had
described the case ‘quite simply as a cheat on the public revenue
whereby the public was cheated out of a large amount of money by a
number of men.

‘
Counsel said that the defendants supplied amusement machines –
mainly video poker games – to pubs, cafes and cab hire firms mostly in
London and the South East but sometimes as far north as Northampton.

The jury were told that there was ‘considerable association’
between the members of the two separate teams.

‘
While Don and Ned Ryan were in charge James and Patrick Ryan
would help to instal the machines and collect the takings from pubs.

The Crown had alleged that Fenlon, Hernandez and O’Hara, worked
with James Ryan as ‘helpers such as maintenance men or takers of the
money.

‘
Counsel explained that the video poker machines were not designed
to pay out and winnings would amount to further ‘goes’ on the same
games.

But to make the games ‘more attractive’ credits would be
cancelled at the back of the machine allowing the player to pocket
cash prizes from behind the counter.

The court had heard that unscrupulous landlords and ‘site
occupiers’ would allow the games on their premises despite the fact
thay they did not have licences for them.

Counsel explained that there was an ‘agreement’ between the
defendants and landlords as to how the profits would be split.

The prosecution said that there was a ‘failure’ to register the
business in order to avoid paying VAT and that little was kept in the
way of invoices or general documentation.

‘The operation of these machines was extremely lucrative.

Obviously tens of thousands of pounds was yielded.

There was every
intention to avoid paying tax.

‘It was a profitable cash business.

There were no records of any
cash returns.

Not a penny of tax was paid in respect of the takings,’
continued Mr Grenfell.

The jury were told that ‘large maounts of money’ were passing
through accounts held by Ned Ryan using various names and one account
had more than three quarters of a million pounds passing through it.

‘
Mr Grenfell had claimed that defendants drove around in Mercedes
motor cars and kept contact with each other using radio-pagers.

Counsel said that there were months of observation by Customs
officers leading up to October 31, 1990 when the defendants were
arrested following a raid on Ned Ryan’s home in Rockmount Road.

Defending Ned Ryan, Mr Richard Carey-Hughes said that ‘obviously
the machines were unlawful’ but it was ‘money people wanted to part
with.

‘
Counsel had told the court that in Ned Ryan’s case there was
nothing to suggest ‘the high living’ normally associated with frauds.

Mr Carey-Hughes said ‘large sums’ of money were collected on
behlaf of the ‘absent Don Ryan.

‘
Defending Patrick Ryan, Mr Steven Schusman, described him as a
‘gofer’ and ‘not a person who had the ability or capacity to be a
gaffer.

‘
Mr John Black, defending James Ryan, said that he would collect
takings as an ‘administrator and organiser’ but he was a ‘gulf away
from the position of Don Ryan.

‘
Mr Black described Don Ryan as a ‘sophisticated and astute
criminal’ who holds bank accounts from ‘County Kildare to Jersey.

‘
ENDS