R v Danny Hutchinson

MS JUSTICE NORTON: On 29 April 2025 in the Crown Court at Nottingham the appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006, and one offence of transferring criminal property, contrary to section 327(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There were two additional counts of possession of an identity document with improper intention which were ordered to lie on the file against him in the usual terms.

On 21 August 2025 at the same court the appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the fraud offence and a concurrent sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for the offence of transferring criminal property. He appeals his sentence with leave of the single judge.

The case involved a refund fraud whereby the appellant purchased a number of items from Amazon across a number of different Amazon accounts. Once the items had been delivered he would request and receive a refund from Amazon and then either return lowvalue goods or not return the property at all. He would then either use the items for himself around the home or sell the items on through sites such as eBay or CeX. To do this he set up a number of different eBay accounts. When these accounts were blocked or deactivated by eBay the appellant would simply set up another one.

The fraud was discovered when the appellant, using an account with the user name "Titchy", posted step by step instructions on a number of internet platforms, detailing how to fraudulently obtain a refund from Amazon through the use of fake accounts.

A financial investigation took place through which it was found that the appellant had obtained 1,000 refunds in the two-year period between February 2020 and March 2022 to a value in excess of £128,000.

To carry out the fraud he had set up over 22 bank accounts, including current accounts, savings accounts, prepaid accounts and crypto currency accounts. Banking patterns between the appellant's bank accounts were complex. They showed the appellant transferring money between accounts in quick succession. He would transfer amounts to one account but then transfer a different amount, either larger or smaller, back to the same account that he had transferred the money from and he would repeat that process throughout the day. Indeed one savings account showed in excess of 40 transactions in a 24-hour period.

The appellant's bank accounts also showed large incoming transactions from two third parties who were named within his accounts, Igor Bosch and Rory Parker. Over a five month period the account named Igor Bosch transferred around £59,250, and Rory Parker transferred to four of the appellant's accounts £113,365.

An investigation was carried out into Rory Parker. His accounts showed he was engaged in refund fraud too with a turnover of £189,000.

Police seized the appellant's mobile phone which showed over 30,000 messages exchanged between the two of them. The messages showed that Mr Parker had requested advice from the appellant in relation to carrying out the frauds and it was clear from the messages that the appellant had technical knowledge of how to conduct fraud, indicating that he had set up false accounts, created fake postage labels and fake invoices. From the messages the arrangement appeared to be that the appellant obtained the stock and then notified Mr Parker of his purchases. Mr Parker would then order what he wanted from the appellant. The appellant would put those items aside for Mr Parker who would then advertise the products and sell them on his eBay accounts. Once sold, Mr Parker would then pay the appellant for the items and receive the profit for himself.

The appellant's home address was searched and officers found a high number of high value video games and Pokémon cards which the appellant admitted he was going to sell on.

Amazon conducted their own investigations. They found 117 different Amazon accounts attributed to the appellant and across those accounts 1,859 orders had been made. A total of 3,689 products had been bought by the appellant and, as we have stated, the value of the fraud and loss to Amazon was in excess of £128,000.

The appellant was arrested on 25 January 2024. He was interviewed and accepted fraudulently applying for the refunds. He stated he used the money to fund his gambling habit and this was accepted by the prosecution.

The appellant was 37 years old and had no previous convictions. He was married with one newborn child. A number of supportive character references were before the court. In the pre-sentence report it was noted that the appellant had been frank about his offending and gambling addiction which were underpinned by a longstanding history of severe anxiety and low mood, as confirmed in a mental health treatment requirement report which was also before the court.

The following additional mitigating features were interviewed: remorse, co-operation with the investigation and full admissions in interview; determination and demonstration of steps taken to address his addiction and offending behaviour; there had been no further offending since 2022;the delay between apprehension and charge had not been caused by the appellant; the appellant's difficult background and mental health difficulties. In addition, it was submitted that an immediate custodial sentence would negatively impact upon the appellant's mental health and prospects for rehabilitation.

It was agreed by both the prosecution and the judge that the fraud was a high culpability Category A due to the sophisticated nature of the offence and the sustained period of time over which the fraud was perpetuated. The value of the fraud placed it in Category 2 which deals with fraud with a range of £100,000 to £500,000. The starting point for a Category 2A offence is five years' custody based on a value of £300,000. The sentencing range is between three and six years' custody. The judge found that the fact that the appellant had distributed to others details of how to commit the fraud was a serious aggravating factor such that a sentence of "at least six years' imprisonment might have been felt to be appropriate before other matters were considered". The judge then reduced that notional sentence by one-third to take account of the early guilty pleas, before then further reducing the sentence by a further year to reflect the mitigation that was placed before him, as we have outlined, to reach a sentence of three years' imprisonment.

We note at this stage that on the step by step approach to sentence required by the guidelines, adjustments to sentence from the starting point to reflect any aggravating or mitigating factors should take place before any reduction for guilty pleas and not afterwards.

In her succinct and helpful submissions, Miss Barber argues, first, that the starting point adopted by the judge was too high. She points out that the five-year starting point is based on a figure of £300,000, more than double the figure obtained by this appellant. Six years, which was the figure that the judge arrived at before any reduction for mitigation or for guilty plea, was at the very top of the category range. Miss Barber submits that given the value of the fraud the starting point taken should have been at the lower end of the category range. The starting point adopted by the judge resulted, she says, in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

Secondly, she argues that had a lower starting point been taken (more accurately reflecting the value of the fraud) then, taking into account the mitigating factors and credit for an early guilty plea, a sentence could and should have been reached that was capable of being and would have been suspended.

In our judgment this was a serious, lengthy and sophisticated fraud that clearly passed the custodial threshold and merited an immediate custodial sentence. We agree with the sentencing judge that the publication by the appellant of the means by which the fraud could be committed and the involvement of another person or persons who the appellant appears to have helped to commit the frauds himself are seriously aggravating factors.

We disagree with the submission of Miss Barber that because the value of the fraud was at the lower end of the range of values for Category 2 that therefore a sentence at the very bottom of the sentencing range should necessarily follow. In this respect, it is relevant to note that the Category 3A offence which encompasses frauds with a value of between £20,000 and £100,000 itself carries a starting point of three years' custody based on a figure of £50,000, with a sentencing range of up to four years. In our judgment, four years would have been the appropriate figure within the sentencing range before adjustment for aggravating and mitigating factors. As already noted, any such adjustment has to take place before any reduction for guilty pleas is applied. As previously stated, we agree with the sentencing judge that this offending was seriously aggravated by the fact that the appellant distributed details of the fraud to others. That requires an upwards adjustment from the four year figure. We also recognise that there were a number of areas of mitigation. In particular, his previous good character, the lengthy period of time that had elapsed since the appellant's offending, the steps taken to address the cause of his offending and his prospects for rehabilitation. Balancing these competing aggravating and mitigating factors, we arrive at a sentence before credit for guilty pleas of 54 months. The appellant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. That entitles him to a reduction of one-third which brings the sentence down to 36 months or three years.

It follows that although we agree that the sentencing judge took too high a starting point, applying the steps in the guidelines in the correct order we reach the same end point as in the lower court. In any event, standing back, we do not consider that this sentence was in any way manifestly excessive approximate and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.