Express & Star

Tax office worker accused of pocketing almost £19k in scam

A worker is accused of pocketing almost £19,000 in a tax credit fraud, a jury heard.

Published
Last updated
It is claimed that almost £19,000 was pocketed in a tax credit fraud

Tracey Griffiths received £18,863 in two years on the basis she and her husband were no longer a couple, Wolverhampton Crown Court was told.

The 36-year-old was ‘not entitled to it because she was not single, the prosecution said.

She claimed as an individual person when in fact she was married and not separated, maintained Mr Paul Mytton, prosecuting.

He continued: “She worked for the Inland Revenue and, interestingly, she worked for a period in the part of the Revenue that deals with potentially fraudulent tax credit claims.”

Griffiths alleged to have separated from her husband Stewart in February 2014 and made her application for tax credit in that month while the couple lived together in Barnet Close, Kingswinford, the court heard.

But the prosecution says they went on holiday together seven times and the duo put a post on social media celebrating their first wedding anniversary in 2014.

It is alleged their finances ran in tandem with bills such as the mortgage being paid by the husband.

Mr Griffiths also bought his wife a car and picked up the £3,000 bill for her cosmetic surgery, declared the prosecutor who concluded: “They may not have been as much in love as the day of their wedding but they lived in the same house.”

The defendant worked at the Wolverhampton office of the Inland Revenue - later renamed HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) – and spent some time employed as a compliance officer checking tax credit claims, the jury heard.

The defendant acknowledged having an ‘in depth’ knowledge of the system.

The racket allegedly ran from February 15 to April 5 2016.

Griffiths, now living in Newbury Road, Wordsley, has denied fraudulently claiming tax credit.

Griffiths denied she had been dishonest.

She told jurors cash transferred to her account from her husband was money he owed for his share of expenses.

The trial continues.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.