Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Colonel Bonkers

Tartsrus

17 posts in this topic

Not sure she struck lucky, given how it's turned out. On the other hand I don't think the Judge has the right to say she isn't worth £20,000 a week, just because it was payment for sexual services. I can't see how she was supposed to know that he was obtaining the money throught deception and I really can't see why she should have to pay it back.

I personally don't know anyone else who's earned that sort of money in this business, but I do know one or two who've received some incredibly expensive presents. Not me, alas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking fecking nosey neighbours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking fecking nosey neighbours!

So was i, a sobering lesson to us all regarding nosey fuckers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure she struck lucky, given how it's turned out. On the other hand I don't think the Judge has the right to say she isn't worth £20,000 a week, just because it was payment for sexual services. I can't see how she was supposed to know that he was obtaining the money throught deception and I really can't see why she should have to pay it back.

I personally don't know anyone else who's earned that sort of money in this business, but I do know one or two who've received some incredibly expensive presents. Not me, alas!

In this case this twat is 100% responsible for his actions and why shouldnt she accept whatever money and gifts he gave her. Its bad luck she is even involved in this case due to nosey neighbours. I hope he gets another 10 years added on. :)

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got any sympathy for Toys R Us either. If he'd ripped off The Early Learning Centre I might have felt differently about the whole thing! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a sensible decision to me.

"Their arrangement began with an agreed weekly fee of £500 for her services, before he requested that she leave the business and see him exclusively, for a weekly fee of £1,000."

Martin Evans, prosecuting, said: "On her own best estimate, she (Dunbar) was entitled to perhaps £200,000 during this period.

"She in fact received in excess of £1,750,000. She received 10 times more than the valuation she put on the service that was provided"

She couldn't have got the following on £1,000 pw:

£25,000 Lexus GS300

£30,000 Toyota Landcruiser

£42,000 Lexus RS400h 4x4 car.

Properties in the UK

£60,000 plot of land in Nigeria

Nearly £400,000 in bank accounts

£132,000 Bentley Continental

£750,000 on houses, cars and holidays

I don't for one minute believe that she(or the other girl who received £600k) received the above in good faith and for value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neighbours just can't keep their beeks out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main WG involved in this was incredibly lucky to strike gold virtually immediately with this guy but then incredibly unlucky that nosey neighbours stuck their noses in.

At least she enjoyed a taste of the high life but i do think its unfair she gets named in this if its not proved which it hasnt been that she was actively involved in his criminality. She herself has not been proved to be a criminal just someone who happily accepted a lot of money and gifts. I am surprised its expected a person should give back these things if not proved she knew they were from a criminal enterprise. She may of known but i would of thought it would have to be proved she knew, seems not.

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neighbours just can't keep their beeks out.

They are certainly off her Christmas card list thats for definite. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if he had hired a maid or a gardener at a very generous rate, would they be made to forfeit the money too? And along the line of her husband getting in trouble for benefiting from prostitution money, could any working girl's other halves suffer for this, or is it just when Lexus' and Bentleys are flying around? What about their landlords or local shopkeepers if they are in the know about where the lady makes her money? Surely this is a good reason for ladies not to pay taxes as that would result in the whole country benefiting from the proceeds of prostitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These type of stories crop up every year, besotted punter, embezzles his company, girl wastes almost all of it on "designer clothes" etc. He always gets caught, and she goes down with the ship as well. No sympathy for either of them, especially for the girl, she could have stepped back at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case this twat is 100% responsible for his actions and why shouldnt she accept whatever money and gifts he gave her. Its bad luck she is even involved in this case due to nosey neighbours. I hope he gets another 10 years added on. :)

I think she should have done some basic due diligence on the guy. Even though she claimed he told her he was rich and the money was from shares, given he gave her almost £2m in gifts, did it never cross her mind even once that it might not be 100% legitimate?

I'm slight confused by one element in the story. The headline states he was company director. Later on, he is described as a purchase ledger manager and in another report is described as an accounts manager. Either are much more junior but crucially would have given him access to the computer systems to set up these false entities and accounts.

I'm amazed for £2m he couldn't pick someone a little better looking though!

Toys R Us WG is no looker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she should have done some basic due diligence on the guy. Even though she claimed he told her he was rich and the money was from shares, given he gave her almost £2m in gifts, did it never cross her mind even once that it might not be 100% legitimate?

I'm slight confused by one element in the story. The headline states he was company director. Later on, he is described as a purchase ledger manager and in another report is described as an accounts manager. Either are much more junior but crucially would have given him access to the computer systems to set up these false entities and accounts.

I'm amazed for £2m he couldn't pick someone a little better looking though!

Toys R Us WG is no looker!

If a woman picked me up in a bar and said she was rich and agreed to pay me huge amounts of cash to shag her i wouldnt be worrying where the money came from just lapping it up. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a little unfair as she is not posing, and is probably trying to avoid the lens. Put some make up on her and I bet she looks pretty smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed for £2m he couldn't pick someone a little better looking though!

It sounds as though the judge thought the same:

"However, after looking at her in court, Judge Stephen John took a different view on her worth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a purely pedantic note why is she refered to as MISS Dunbar in the article when she is married. Ms is more than acceptable if she wants to be discreet. Perhaps the good old Daily Mail could only understand Mistress in a Jane Austen sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0