Staff sergeant defrauds regiment to buy cars and hair transplant

An Army staff sergeant who defrauded his regiment out of more than £330,000 to buy luxury cars, a hair transplant and 'adult services' has been jailed.
Andrew Oakes, 39, used his position as financial systems administrator at the Catterick Garrison base in North Yorkshire to transfer £336,448 of public funds into his personal accounts.
He used the funds to buy three Tesla cars, a Mini Cooper and a Nissan Qashqai, along with Apple products, a hair transplant and spent £16,500 on 'adult services'.
He also paid off debts by writing cheques to himself and disguising the transactions by falsifying stubs in the names of legitimate suppliers, including a regimental accountant and tailoring company.
Oakes appeared for sentence on Thursday at Teesside Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud by false representation, fraud by abuse of a position of trust and acquiring criminal property between February 2021 and October 2024.
He was jailed for three-and-a-half years.
'Multiple suspicious transactions'
Prosecutor Tabitha Buck said the role as a financial systems administrator was given to 'trustworthy' personnel because it gave them restricted but 'significant' access to MoD funds.
In August 2024, Oakes was quizzed by his military line manager after she uncovered 'multiple suspicious transactions in the system' and reported this to the Royal Military Police.
It emerged the scam first got under way in February 2021 when Oakes falsified his bank statements to try to prove that he had £300,000 available to secure a mortgage for a property, claiming he had won the money in 'the army lottery'.
Between July 2021 and April 2022, he created false local authority and utility documents to claim £1,584 of mileage allowance.
It was in May 2024 that the deception originally came to light, by which time Oakes had written 28 government cheques to himself.
The investigation was then passed on to MoD's Economic Crime Team.
He was fraudulently taking 'extensive periods of leave' on compassionate and medical grounds claiming that a family member had died.
Oakes took 66 medical-leave days and 12 on 'compassionate' grounds, which first 'raised a red flag' among his military bosses.
His military line manager said she had been supportive and sympathetic towards Oakes due to the 'family bereavement' and his perceived personal circumstances, which gave rise to his request for leave on compassionate grounds.
Oakes, who was representing himself in court, said: 'I just want to apologise to everyone I've hurt – family and the Army especially. I was in a very bad place, drinking a lot of alcohol.'
He said he wasn't a 'stable' individual at the time, adding: 'I regret everything I've done.'
Judge Nathan Adams said that Oakes had 'wholly abused' a position of trust, prestige and 'high responsibility' in which he was given 'significant' access to state defence funds.
He added: 'The impact of your offending is not simply the financial loss to the public purse but also the reputational damage caused to the organisation as a while, to Catterick and your battalion.
'Those officers who supported you with your personal problems felt significantly betrayed when they found out what was really going on and it's had a significant impact on the morale of your battalion in Catterick.'
Mr Adams acknowledged Oakes did have genuine personal issues at the time, including the breakdown of his relationship with his former partner, which led to a drink problem.
Oakes, of Station Road, Winsford, Cheshire, received a three-and-a-half-year jail sentence but was told under the Government's early-release scheme he would serve less than half of that time behind bars before being released on licence.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

23 minutes ago

• Telegraph

How Rachel Reeves prioritised growth over Britain's pension savers

When Labour swept to power last year, around half a million pensioners held their breath. Members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) had spent years fighting for their full pension entitlement. Months earlier, the Tories had indicated they might finally be restored. The PPF and the FAS step in to pay people's pensions when their defined benefit schemes can no longer afford to, often because a firm has gone bust and cannot afford to keep it running. The increasing costs of such schemes, partly due to increased life expectancy, have also put them under pressure. Over the past 20 years, more than 2,000 schemes have been bailed out. However, the payments members receive are rarely the same as the entitlements they had built up – for some, it isn't even close. Strict rules mean that when a scheme goes bust, anyone who is not already drawing their pension will only be entitled to 90pc of it when they retire. Crucially, payments for any years built up before 1997 also won't rise with inflation, while any after that are capped at just 2.5pc. As a result, some members' pensions never increase, while others fall as low as 50pc of what they should have been. Savers were hoping a Tory intervention would rescue them from retirement poverty while others could have seen six-figure losses reversed as they finally received the full pensions they'd worked decades for. In July 2024, the power to change lives fell into the hands of the Labour party, bringing fresh hope that a battle stretching across two decades could finally be won. Yet 12 months on, Chancellor Rachel Reeves continues to ignore their plight, instead choosing to hand a major financial boost to pension providers in her relentless pursuit of growth. A fortnight ago, she announced plans to tweak rules that would mean they no longer have to pay a multi-million pound levy to sustain the scheme, which has raised £10bn over two decades. Those whose pensions rely on the PPF and FAS called the decision 'shameful', 'morally corrupt' and 'pandering to the industry' as they continue fighting for their full payments. After years of lobbying, campaign groups are animatedly pointing to the £13.7bn in reserves that the PPF now holds. It would cost just £10.1bn to restore the pensions of its 293,000 members, including awarding inflationary increases of up to 5pc and repaying arrears. However, the fund is powerless without a change in legislation. After the election, with hopes growing that Labour would make that change, eyes were keenly trained on the Pension Schemes Bill. When it was published earlier this month, it did contain a major legislative change – but for pension schemes, not members. The Bill gives the PPF greater powers, but only to reduce the levy that pension schemes pay to sustain it. First collected in 2006-07, it has already fallen significantly since its record level of £720m in 2010-11. It now sits at just £45m, and the PPF will soon be able to reduce it to zero. The levy can be reintroduced again if needed. The move will give schemes extra cash at a time when they are being pushed into increasing their UK investment by the Chancellor's recent Mansion House reforms. Saving wealthy pension schemes money when individuals are struggling doesn't sit well with Maurice Alphandary, 70, from Abingdon, near Oxfordshire. He worked as a chemical engineer for AEA Technology, the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which was privatised before going bust. He now runs the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign, which has spent 13 years fighting to restore pensions. The current PPF rules will cost him around £100,000. He said: 'It just shows how toothless the PPF is in protecting the interests of its members against the Government. The Government can just ride roughshod over them. 'On the one hand, the Government says, 'We really care about our pensioners', but they don't. They're just pandering to the industry and it's a way of just running down the surplus instead of giving to the people who have suffered. There's enough money to compensate us.' His former colleague, 73-year-old Andrew Turner from Abingdon, receives just £18,000 per year from a pension that should pay £29,000. He said: 'For a Labour government who are supposedly focused on those who are less well off, this seems to be exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. 'The question is why should pension companies be rewarded when we're being penalised. If the Government or the PPF had any moral responsibility, it's those who are in greatest need should have first call on this surplus.' The Bill contained no news for the 140,000 FAS members either. With no levy, any changes would be funded by the public purse. David Page, 73, lives in Chelmsford and worked for Bradstock Group, a commercial insurer that went bust in 2003. He only receives around half of the pension he paid for, and is not confident of any progress. He said: 'It still hurts. It's typical of governments. They don't want to spend money. This one will be the world's worst. It's morally corrupt, but morals don't count do they?' Terry Monk, 81, from Camberley in Surrey, also worked for Bradstock. He said the Government's decision to pursue growth with members' money was 'shameful'. He said: 'What they're forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is how that surplus has arisen in the first place and it was a combination of schemes' assets and members' contributions. 'They're trying to get money that they don't own to fund projects. I'm suspicious of the people we have in power at the moment.' For its part, the Government is expected to address retirement poverty in part two of its pensions review. It has already given £1.5bn back to retired miners and is considering handing over £2.3bn more. Ministers have also met with PPF and FAS members to hear their concerns, and accepted it was an 'important issue'. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: 'The Government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the PPF and FAS members on this issue.' A PPF spokesman said it welcomed the fresh consideration that the DWP was giving to compensation levels. They added: 'Given our financial strength, we think it's the right time to reduce costs for levy paying schemes and their employers and to consider the levels of indexation we pay our members.'

Telegraph

24 minutes ago

• Telegraph

RAF base's only defence against Palestine Action was 6ft wooden fence

For almost 80 years, RAF Brize Norton has been one of the country's most important military airfields, serving as an embarkation point for members of the Royal family and senior politicians as they fly around the globe. So one could be forgiven for expecting security around the Oxfordshire airbase to be watertight. In reality, however, things are a little more porous, with sections of the eight-mile perimeter protected only by a six-foot wooden fence that would not look out of place surrounding a suburban garden. In the early hours of Friday morning, two members of the protest group Palestine Action – which will now be proscribed as a terrorist organisation – took advantage of the seemingly lax defences to enter the airfield and attack two military aircraft. Video footage posted by the group showed two people using electric scooters to cross the base's runway. One can be seen approaching an aircraft and spray-painting its engine, before driving away down the empty airstrip. They were then able to disappear into the night, leaving the RAF red-faced and the Ministry of Defence to announce an urgent review of security. Brize Norton serves as the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. It is also where the aircraft used by dignitaries, including the monarch and prime minister, are based. As would be expected, large parts of the base, especially near the gates, are surrounded by high metal fences topped with menacing-looking razor wire. The perimeter in these areas also bristles with security cameras and hi-tech CCTV to monitor the comings of goings of all personnel. Armed guards patrol the gates in a show of strength aimed at deterring anyone who has no lawful business. But just a short stroll along a grass verge, the barbed wire comes to an abrupt end, to be replaced by a panel fence that looks like it could have been purchased from a DIY store. The section in question is plain to see for anyone travelling the four miles between the villages of Carterton and Bampton along station road. Stretching for around 170 metres, it skirts along the end of the runway and is protected from the road by just a small line of wooden and concrete bollards. One resident said: 'I've lived in this area for years and every time I drive past the fence I think: 'That would be easy to break into'.' It is not topped with barbed wire or any other anti-climbing defences, and would provide little resistance to a determined terrorist with a spring in their step. There is even a hole in the fence at one point for anyone who cannot quite manage the climb. Red warning signs attached to the fence declare: 'No unauthorised access. Protected site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Trespass on this site is a Criminal Offence. This site is also regulated by military bylaws.' At one end of the section, kennels belonging to the RAF Police's dog section are located. But, while a number of RAF Police vehicles were parked close by, there were no visible personnel patrols on Friday afternoon during the three hours that reporters from The Telegraph were at the site. On the other side of the fence, and just a short distance from the road, Airbus Voyager aircraft, the air-to-air refuellers targeted by Palestine Action, can be seen on the tarmac. Security for the Brize Norton airfield is the responsibility of the RAF Police and Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), which secures Army, Navy and RAF bases. But former members have suggested the unit is poorly funded and does not have the resources to effectively secure such large sites. One RAF source told The Telegraph the level of security across all military was not up to standard, and that 'more dogs, more coppers and more money' was needed to properly secure the sensitive sites. 'We have barbed wire around the bases and cameras, but is its perimeter fence completely covered for the miles it takes up?' the source said. 'No, because Brize Norton is f---ing huge.' He added: 'If we could have another 50 coppers and 50 dogs the security at Brize Norton would improve. But is the security as tight at a fast jet base? Not really. 'To have watertight security at a base like Brize Norton, you'd have to invest countless people and god knows the amount of money. But maybe that's what we have to do now if this is the way things are going.' The source added: 'MPGS are responsible for recruiting the right people and getting them in the right places, but they haven't done that. ' It's a symptom of a lack of investment on security. We don't have tens of millions of pounds to put up CCTV across all the bases.' Another former military source added: 'The security at these non-nuclear bases can be very patchy. The perimeter fences are too long to be able to have them under surveillance 24 hours a day. 'But when Glastonbury's fence is harder to breach than RAF Brize Norton, you know you have an issue. 'While it may be challenging to secure an entire eight-mile perimeter, you would think they ought to be able to protect aircraft sitting on the runway. Someone's head is going to have to roll over this.'

The Independent

29 minutes ago

• The Independent

Whitehall isn't working – here's how the PM can fix it

It never rains but it pours for Keir Starmer. He is fighting to stop the Iran crisis wrecking his one success as prime minister – a solid performance on foreign affairs in which he somehow maintains a productive relationship with Donald Trump. Insiders tell me Starmer's efforts are aimed at persuading Iran to enter meaningful talks on its nuclear programme and then convincing a highly sceptical US president that Iran is serious about negotiations. But if Trump goes ahead with his threat to bomb Iran, Starmer's special relationship with him could conceivably be stretched to breaking point. The prime minister can't escape his woes on domestic matters. His intense diplomacy was interrupted on Thursday by the unwelcome news that Vicky Foxcroft had resigned as a whip in protest at the government's cuts to disability benefits. She might not be the last to quit a government post before the crunch vote on £5bn of welfare cuts on 1 July, when Starmer faces the biggest Labour revolt of his premiership. Some parliamentary aides to ministers are on resignation watch. The government's robotic response to Foxcroft's departure, which failed to acknowledge her respected work as shadow disabilities minister before last year's election, angered some Labour MPs. Many will rebel with a heavy heart. They accept the need to reduce the ballooning welfare budget, but think the panicky cuts ahead of Rachel Reeves's spring statement symbolise how the government repeatedly reacts to events – in this case, living from hand to mouth to stick within the chancellor's fiscal rules – instead of having a long-term reform strategy. For some Whitehall-watchers, Starmer will not improve matters unless he reforms the centre of government. Critics think the relationship between No 10 and the Cabinet Office isn't working, leaving the other side of the triangle, the Treasury, to call the shots. The result: the winter fuel allowance catastrophe and now the welfare rebellion. Even some in Downing Street admit privately a shake-up is needed. Sam Freedman, a former special adviser and author of an excellent book, Failed State, suggests loosening the Treasury's grip by forming an Office of Budget Management, run jointly by the Treasury and Downing Street, which would oversee future spending reviews to ensure they reflect the PM's priorities. Freedman believes Starmer should consider a change Tony Blair introduced in his second term, which improved public service delivery. To prevent the whole operation being sucked into reacting to events, three units focused on different timescales: a policy unit on day-to-day oversight of Whitehall departments; a delivery unit on a small number of the PM's priorities (in Starmer's case, that would be his five missions); and a strategy unit on difficult long-term challenges. This ensured a more strategic state. One problem today is that the 'missions delivery unit' is based in the Cabinet Office rather than No 10. The Institute for Government (IFG) think tank has made a sensible proposal to abolish the Cabinet Office and set up an expanded 'Office of the Prime Minister', which would then take charge of the missions. Do such structures really matter? Yes. They are even more important when a PM makes a virtue out of his pragmatism and lack of ideology, as Starmer does. Like many predecessors, Starmer complains the Whitehall machine is slow to crank into life when he demands action. Often fair – but civil servants also have a point when they grumble that this government does not give them clear enough marching orders. For example, the government's own commitment to Starmer's missions – later relaunched as six milestones in his 'plan for change' – is now being questioned in Whitehall. Ministers promised the missions would be the 'guiding star' of the government-wide spending review unveiled by Reeves last week, and that cabinet ministers would collaborate on cross-departmental working and budgets. Only one problem: there was little money to go round. So the review again became a trial of strength between the Treasury and individual ministers trying to protect their departments. Starmer's 'mission-driven government' was caught in the crossfire and some Whitehall officials think the idea suffered serious damage. The IFG calculates that two of the missions – on economic growth and clean energy – did well out of the spending review, but the other three – on health, safer streets and opportunity – look difficult to achieve. Another reason why the missions matter is that this government doesn't have the option of pumping in extra cash to secure the improvements to public services voters want, as Blair and Gordon Brown enjoyed. Although Reeves won headlines for her big boost to building projects, her squeeze on day-to-day budgets is viewed in Whitehall as a 'standstill settlement'. So reform and efficiency savings will be needed to secure tangible improvements – not least in the NHS. The missions can play a part in prioritising these goals. With many public services still struggling in the voters' eyes, standing still will not win Labour a second term.