Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vin DaLoo

Toys R Us Director Paid Prostitute £20,000 A Week

45 posts in this topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8760023/Toys-R-Us-director-paid-prostitute-20000-a-week.html

Judge Stephen John berated the call-girl over her charges for the sexual services she provided to a director of children's favourite firm Toys R Us.

Dawn Dunbar told the judge that although she realised her fees were 10-times the usual going rate, they were for services rendered to disgraced Paul Hopes.

Judge John calculated the weekly average she had received and questioned her, saying: "The amount is not £500 a week. It is not £1,000, or even £2,000 a week.

"It is £20,000 a week. How do you manage to evaluate your services - sex - at £20,000 a week?

"How do you justify that?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She can easily 'justify' it because some imbecile was willing to pay it

...but with Toys R Us Shareholder's money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but with Toys R Us Shareholder's money

Greed on that scale has to have some form of payback IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She can easily 'justify' it because some imbecile was willing to pay it

Spot on. This is the third thread on this matter but my thoughts remain the same, firstly fucking nosey neighbours and secondly if a woman offered me huge sums of cash and gave me gifts to shag her saying she was rich i wouldnt be questioning her, just lapping it up. If she wasnt aware he was a thieving crook then its bad luck she has had the judge on her back like this in my view.

She was really lucky to meet this muppet initially, then lived the high life for a while and bloody good luck to her, then really unlucky that neighbours stuck their snouts in.

I hope this guy does get another 10 years on top of the seven. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but with Toys R Us Shareholder's money

And our taxpayers money, that I doubt got paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puts paying £100 for an hour out of your own hard -earned into perspective, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bloke Hopes is clearly an idiot, but you have to question the accounts department at the firm. £3.7 million is a lot to remove from a company, especially in these straightened times when every penny needs to be accounted for.

As for the WG, she was entitled to take this idiot for all she could if that's what she wanted to do. I wouldn't normally encourage WG's to take that attitude but if she comes across an idiot like this one who is so clearly stupid she can take advantage. He could have stopped the game at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope the tax man got her afterwards. On £20k a week she is going to have a big tax bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And our taxpayers money, that I doubt got paid?

If Toys R Us didnt pay the tax owed we would of heard about it, even though this is a huge amount of money its not going to put them in the position of not being able to pay the tax owed. If they couldnt do that they would be on the brink of insolvency when in reality their net earnings in the quarter ending March this year was $330 million in total.

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blimey if spent that much at my usual places i would be in there 24/7 !!

it would be fantastic !!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bloke Hopes is clearly an idiot, but you have to question the accounts department at the firm. £3.7 million is a lot to remove from a company, especially in these straightened times when every penny needs to be accounted for.

As for the WG, she was entitled to take this idiot for all she could if that's what she wanted to do. I wouldn't normally encourage WG's to take that attitude but if she comes across an idiot like this one who is so clearly stupid she can take advantage. He could have stopped the game at any time.

May I correct myself? When I posted I hadn't realised that this was a POCA hearing. She perhaps should have worked out that the cash was illegally obtained. It can't have been hard, despite what Hopes may have told her. In that case she should have spent it more wisely, or even sent it all to her aunt in South America, and then got on the next plane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toys R Us didnt pay the tax owed we would of heard about it, even though this is a huge amount of money its not going to put them in the position of not being able to pay the tax owed. If they couldnt do that they would be on the brink of insolvency when in reality their net earnings in the quarter ending March this year was $330 million in total.

Looks like Toys R Us, like so many big corporations, treat paying tax as somewhat optional:

http://www.corporatecritic.org/info/PressAsfo1.aspx

In the UK the company paid £873,000 tax in the year to January 2006 on a turnover of £508 million.

As Hopes perpetrated the fraud by creating false invoices from a company called Dunbar Associates I expect these would have been treated as a business expense, thus further reducing their tax bill - until the fraud was discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was a fool, she's not even hot though, he should of gone to specsavers lol,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was a fool, she's not even hot though, he should of gone to specsavers lol,

Lots of working ladies are not 'hot' but they still do a damn good job. Her greed was their downfall IMHO. If she had not asked for extortionately expensive things they might still be 'at it', whearas now - he's doing time, she has to pay it all back and she has been outed, which is the ultimate in shame. A pity she had to be so greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of working ladies are not 'hot' but they still do a damn good job. Her greed was their downfall IMHO. If she had not asked for extortionately expensive things they might still be 'at it', whearas now - he's doing time, she has to pay it all back and she has been outed, which is the ultimate in shame. A pity she had to be so greedy.

They wouldn't be "at it". This man had a further four women on his sex payroll; one of whom received £600,000. She deserved to be outed - the total she obtained was in the £ millions - there is a difference between doing a damn good job and being a money-sucking leech as this woman clearly was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant. Syphoning off £3.7M of company money then caning it all on this grabbing cow. They're both fucked now. Best news story of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge John calculated the weekly average she had received and questioned her, saying: "The amount is not £500 a week. It is not £1,000, or even £2,000 a week.

"It is £20,000 a week. How do you manage to evaluate your services - sex - at £20,000 a week?

"How do you justify that? "

Best comment I've seen on this is "Does the judge ask barristers this question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge John calculated the weekly average she had received and questioned her, saying: "The amount is not £500 a week. It is not £1,000, or even £2,000 a week.

"It is £20,000 a week. How do you manage to evaluate your services - sex - at £20,000 a week?

"How do you justify that? "

Best comment I've seen on this is "Does the judge ask barristers this question?

About one tenth that of what they pay Rooney. How the fuck do they justify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About one tenth that of what they pay Rooney. How the fuck do they justify that?

SpoksEyebrows in incisive, pithy comment shocker! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Santa

Can I have a Toys 'R' us Director for Christmas please.

Seriously though Why does the lady have to Justify anything? If she is asked what her fee is, and she replies £20,000 per week, and the client says 'great Here you go' handing over a pile of money, then what is really wrong with that?. Its none of our business except to gasp in jealousy at the £amount. Ladies that they don't charge it and men that they cant afford it

What makes this Judge think he can value her at any price? surely valuation is so subjective as to be as individual as the person making that valuation.

Footballers are not asked to justify £120,000 Actors don't have to justify why they're paid millions for a few weeks work.

A certain barrister isn't asked to justify why he gets drunk driving 'celebs' off drink drive charges and puts pissheads back behind the wheel of powerful cars.

but a woman selling sex does have to justify herself? Why?

Great comment on the Barrister by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Santa

Can I have a Toys 'R' us Director for Christmas please.

Seriously though Why does the lady have to Justify anything? If she is asked what her fee is, and she replies £20,000 per week, and the client says 'great Here you go' handing over a pile of money, then what is really wrong with that?. Its none of our business except to gasp in jealousy at the £amount. Ladies that they don't charge it and men that they cant afford it

What makes this Judge think he can value her at any price? surely valuation is so subjective as to be as individual as the person making that valuation.

Footballers are not asked to justify £120,000 Actors don't have to justify why they're paid millions for a few weeks work.

A certain barrister isn't asked to justify why he gets drunk driving 'celebs' off drink drive charges and puts pissheads back behind the wheel of powerful cars.

but a woman selling sex does have to justify herself? Why?

Great comment on the Barrister by the way.

I agree, its ridiculous, if she wasnt involved in the fraud and thats not been said or proved as i understand it its nothing to do with her in my view. He said he was rich and gave her lots of cash and presents, how is it right that the onus seems to be on her to know where his money came from i have no idea apart from what other posters have said. She shouldnt even be in court and in my opinion should never of been named, she has done nothing criminally wrong. Being greedy or as i look on it, being smart isnt a crime. Obviously her smartness didnt continue as her nosey neighbours noticed. Unlike many on here i think she has has a bad deal here. He was 100% responsible for this criminal situation unless its shown beyond all doubt she knew. Clearly the judge disagrees though and she gets hammered. :)

Edited by smiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, its ridiculous, if she wasnt involved in the fraud and thats not been said or proved as i understand it its nothing to do with her in my view. He said he was rich and gave her lots of cash and presents, how is it right that the onus seems to be on her to know where his money came from i have no idea apart from what other posters have said. She shouldnt even be in court and in my opinion should never of been named, she has done nothing criminally wrong. Being greedy or as i look on it, being smart isnt a crime. Obviously her smartness didnt continue as her nosey neighbours noticed. Unlike many on here i think she has has a bad deal here. He was 100% responsible for this criminal situation unles its shown beyond all doubt she knew. Clearly the judge disagrees though and she gets hammered. :)

I posted something similar in response to a post by 'Mega' last night but it was deleted???.. gone this morning.

If she had not been so greedy by asking for extortionately expensive gifts, then her nosy neighbours would not have reported her, and she would not have faced the ultimate shame in being outed. As it is, her greed outed her, and the rest is history.

If I suddenly acquired a new Bentley and a Lexus and goodness knows whatever else and parked them outside of my ordinary house I think my neighbours would be twitching their curtains too. It stands to reason IMHO. I think the judge in saying she was only worth £2k per week needs his brains testing. I would put a figure of £10k on that. *I think* **blinks**

I wanted to stipulate something here because I think it is lost.... her looks, age and condition are Zilch to do with this. If she were a young slim blonde with big tits she could recoup some of her losses by selling herself to the papers, but this lady will now be finished in the eyes of the community, her children and her family. Okay she was greedy, but there you go. Life is a bitch eh?

Edited by Sarah Summers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted something similar in response to a post by 'Mega' last night but it was deleted???.. gone this morning.

If she had not been so greedy by asking for extortionately expensive gifts, then her nosy neighbours would not have reported her, and she would not have faced the ultimate shame in being outed. As it is, her greed outed her, and the rest is history.

If I suddenly acquired a new Bentley and a Lexus and goodness knows whatever else and parked them outside of my ordinary house I think my neighbours would be twitching their curtains too. It stands to reason IMHO. I think the judge in saying she was only worth £2k per week needs his brains testing. I would put a figure of £10k on that. *I think* **blinks**

I wanted to stipulate something here because I think it is lost.... her looks, age and condition are Zilch to do with this. If she were a young slim blonde with big tits she could recoup some of her losses by selling herself to the papers, but this lady will now be finished in the eyes of the community, her children and her family. Okay she was greedy, but there you go. Life is a bitch eh?

Its certainly ultimately been a bitch to her. In her position i would of been more discreet and probably moved to a place with no neighbours in sight with garages for the cars but in her mind she might of thought as she wasnt doing anything wrong there wasnt a reason to. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem like an absurd amount of money to pay and I don't think it can be justified, but to be fair I think the fees paid to professional footballers are equally absurd and unjustifiable.

However I don't see any grounds for Toys R US to reclaim the money, if he had spent the money on holidays and fast cars they wouldn't be able to target the car dealerships and travel agents.

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