|
|
05 Jan 2010
An ex-ACCA president and former health service finance chief who deceived his wife and cheated his step-son and daughter-in-law out of £20,000 has escaped being jailed.
Dennis Yeates, president of the ACCA in 2006, pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to a charge of theft.
Yeates stole the money from his step-son, consultant orthopaedic surgeon Peter Thompson, and from Thompson’s GP wife Dr Sally Cooper by claiming he was investing it for them.
But after hearing that he has since borrowed from his sister to repay the
money, the judge sentenced him to eight month in prison suspended for two years.
Yeates (46) of Shrubbery Road, Worcester, was also ordered to undertake 180
hours of unpaid work and to pay £500 costs.
Prosecutor Neil Bannister said that unknown to his wife and family, he lost his job as deputy director of finance with the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership and NHS Trust in 2007 but kept up the pretence that he was still in employment.
The following year he told members of his wife’s family about a very attractive share deal in a company called Desire Petroleum plc, which he urged them to invest in through him, claiming he did work for the firm.
Thompson and Cooper, who live in Leamington Spa, Warwicks, handed over a total of £20,000 to him in July 2008.
But as well as paying for himself and his wife to go on a £7,000 holiday to China as part of his pretence, he used some of the money to maintain a relationship with another woman in London.
Mr Bannister added that Yeates’s sister has since re-mortgaged her home to lend him £20,000 to repay the money, after no shares had been purchased.
Nicholas Roberts, defending, said: “He had a responsible position, but the leading of a double life and the loss of that position led him into stealing the money.”
He did intend to buy the shares, but began using the money to keep up the pretence he was still working, expecting to replace it when he received his share from the sale of his late mother’s home, but it has still not been sold.
“He is now ruined as far as his chosen profession is concerned,” added Mr
Roberts.
The judge, Recorder Lynn Tayton QC told Yeates: “You were in a position of trust
so far as your wife’s family were concerned, and you abused that trust."
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
Family values
Perhaps the family could have been more supportive, rather than, apparently, vengeful.
Posted by: John Struthers, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
mens rea ?
Inexcusable conduct, unbecoming a professionally qualified Accountant. However where is the "intent" ?
How much has this case cost the English taxpayer whilst the legal profession lived high on the hog exploiting a vengeful relative's allegation? Shameful!!!!!!!
What sort of Christian family would pursue such wild allegations against another family member, particularly when the matter was at all times capable of being rectified?
Posted by: Chris Roger, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Disgraced president
I wonder how many times Mr Yeates has sat in judgement over other people. He probably admonished me for auditing with green ink two years running!
Posted by: Peter, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
why this?
WHY DID THE IN-LAWS BEHAVE BADLY THIS WAY? IT IS UNFORTUNATE
Posted by: ROLAND KOOMSON, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
How the mighty have fallen
A Chairman said to me years ago when I was appointed Finance Director 'Ken, trust no one'. It seemed a very hard thing to say at the time, but as the years have gone by how right he was! We respect and trust people, and then they flatten us by betraying that trust. We find it all so difficult to believe and take in. The worst cases of course have been the MPs. What a sad world of deceit we live in!
Posted by: K J Stones FCCA FCMI, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Why no custodial sentence
Any ordinary member of the public would have gone to jail.
A bloody disgrace
Posted by: Mr Brown, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
ACCA
Is this what we expect from the president of the ACCA? I thank God for guiding me into the ICAEW many years ago
Posted by: Rakesh, 06 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Little sympathy here I'm afraid
So John thinks the family should have been supportive rather than vengeful? It looks like he took the money from his wife's family rather than his own - and I'd have rather more sympathy for him if he hadn't used the money on an expensive holiday and 'a relationship with another woman'.
Posted by: Helen, 07 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Family at War
The family should have been more understanding, sort this out between themselves rather than go public
Posted by: Charles Sonny, 07 Jan 2010 | 00:00
What???
20,000 pounds.......what an IDIOT......what did he buy for the mistress? a take away at the chip shop?
What a disgrace......if he didn't have a mistress the wife's family wouldn't have screwed him............
Posted by: Ex ACCA, 07 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Correction of facts
He didn't lose his job at Worcesteshire Mental Health - he handed his notice in
Posted by: Bob, 07 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Rectification to Chris Roger
What kind of arrogance would lead you to presume a family to be Christian? What does this have to do with anything anyway?
For your information, he was given myriad chances to rectify the situation and receive help and support over this and many other issues that have yet to come out. Instaed he continued to weave a web of deceit that has damaged many people's lives. Also for your information, he was brought up by an extremely religious, Christian mother.
Posted by: David, 08 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Good enough for him.
As a person in a position of trust this is inexcuisable, Mid life crisis?
Posted by: Jimmy O'Hara, 08 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Disgrace to follow members
How can we trust these people at the helm? Didn?t they know when they make mistakes the impact is multiples of 100s!
Posted by: Jay, 12 Jan 2010 | 00:00
Regrets
i bet he's regretting his actions now. After all, if he'd bought the shares he could have two mistresses now and still be getting away with it.
Posted by: Big John, 03 Feb 2010 | 00:00
Conduct unbecoming
This is not good at all. It casts a negative light on the profression.
Posted by: Jason Kazilimani, 12 Feb 2010 | 00:00
Jail Time
Why is he not in Jail?. If he was working class and a benefit cheat I bet the treatment would have been different.
Posted by: Max B Gold, 13 Feb 2010 | 00:00
Why is it the family's fault?
I don't understand all these comments that it's the family's fault for not being more understanding and patient. The man lied, broke the law and stole money to support his mistress. He's a grown up and must face the consequences for his actions.
Posted by: Mark, 15 Feb 2010 | 00:00
WHY SEND HIM TO PRISON?
First of all it would cost us, who don't pinch other peoples' money, far too much to keep him incarcerated. Next, there's no room. Next he's not going to do it again, as he's lost his professional standing and that is probably the greatest punishment of all to him. To be seen locally working with a jacket on saying "Community Payback", might very well tip his sanity over the edge. There are also many other knock-on negative effects that he will have to suffer. Those who say stick him in prison don't know the reality - as a Magistrate I do and it's a punishment of last resort, believe me!
Posted by: John R, 17 Feb 2010 | 00:00
Obsession with prison
Great! Put him in prison. Who pays for that? His family members that he ripped off and the rest of the tax paying public. So while he's living it up in accommodation costing more per day than the Savoy he's smiling at having netted some more victims. Solution: remove the parts that perpetrated the crime and his liquidatable assets.
Posted by: Ron Platt, 17 Feb 2010 | 00:00
to jail
he should go to jail.
I worked for an accountant who routinely frauded vat tax and clients ; he audited his own company accounts and refused to return my professional papers so i could not "qualify" ; he then lied to the acca ; ( documents to support this available ). THe ACCA did nothing ;they fined him £250.00 concerning the audit . and later falsely denied that I reported the matter to them ~ the student support officer @acca was the only one who would listen
I had 10 years of tax office experience
The ACCA deserves this bad publicity -
Posted by: pat, 25 Feb 2010 | 00:00
Seems a bit harsh on the part of the wife's family
.....let's be honest virtually everything they have is paid for by the tax payer, I would have expected them to have shown some mercy being caring Public Servants and not reported him to the Police.
Posted by: Martin, 26 Feb 2010 | 00:00
ACCA Members were Duped
He was not elected as President by ACCA members. He was also allowed to cast thousands to votes under the ACCA delegated proxy voting system to "appoint" other council members. No ACCA council member has come forward to explain why they trusted him. ACCA's own magazine has not yet reported the matter either.
The disciplinary hearing will be a whitewash. In 1996, ACCA announced a disciplinary hearing against the then vice-president Jim Waits for abusive conduct at an EGM. I was at the receiving end of his abuse.
To this day, the ACCA magazine has not announced the result of the hearing. Ordinary folks get named in the magazine but not the unelected leadership.
There are too many other sorry episodes covered up by the hierarchy.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=148079§ioncode=26
Posted by: Prem Sikka, 01 Mar 2010 | 00:00
one does not mean 'ALL'
not all the members and students of ACCA are bad ! not all the members of ICAEW are good ! you can not judge "all "by "one "
Posted by: equal, 12 Mar 2010 | 00:00
ACCA's members and fellows
ACCA should set excellent standards so that its members and fellows promote professional integrity and transparency. ACCA's members or Fellows should not tolerate or protect fraudsters.Unfortunately,they do even if the amount is more £200,000.They will choose to claim the defrauded amount under Fidelity Insurance cover,thus creating a blackhole in the economy.
Posted by: Ramraj Balloo, 08 Dec 2011 | 15:08