x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

A senior surveyor married to a police officer is said to have taken part in a £10m mortgage scam in exchange for cars and money.

Mary-Jane Rathie, on trial at the Old Bailey, allegedly overvalued a string of five upmarket London properties in return for gifts of more than £1m from a woman known as Joanne Pier.

Pier used the valuations to secure mortgages from the Bank of Scotland. Altogether, Pier – who has since vanished – obtained £10m of mortgages, of which £9.5m relied on Rathie’s valuations.

In return, Rathie, 43, was said to have received £900,000 in cheques and money transfers plus a Bentley Continental and a Range Rover Sport.

The vehicles, together worth nearly £200,000, were both registered in the name of her husband David, 47, a Metropolitan Police officer.

David Durose, prosecuting, said: “This was payment to Mrs Rathie for her dishonest valuations.”

Rathie, of Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, denies five allegations of fraud between May 2007 and June 2009. Both she and her husband, of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, each deny a charge of concealing criminal property.

Rathie, who worked for Ashdown Lyons in Finchley, North London, and whose RICS membership was suspended for one year last November, came across Pier in 2007. Pier went to Ashdown Lyons with a list of properties that she owned and that she wanted valued.

The court was told that in June 2007, Rathie – who had married the month before – told her employers that Ms Pier had offered her £100,000 as a wedding present, which was twice her annual salary, but that she had declined it.

Mr Durose said: “In June 2007, Mrs Rathie was able to refuse such an offer, and not only refuse it, but report it. Unfortunately six months later, the position had changed.”

He said Rathie valued one property in Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, at £4.2m, which was nearly twice the £2.35m value given by an independent surveyor later instructed by the Bank of Scotland to investigate the alleged fraud.

A property at Cadogan Gardens was valued at £3m by Rathie, twice the figure later reached by the independent surveyor.

Mr Durose told jurors it would be ‘ludicrous’ to expect every surveyor to come up with the same value for a property, but that the defendant’s valuations were outside the range that could be expected.

The trial continues: therefore no posts on this story, please.

Comments

  • icon

    Ajax, I know what sub-judice means but why post a story but ask people not to comment on it until the case is over. If you post something - people will post - it's human nature. If you don't want people to comment just yet, then don't post it until you are ready. It's not difficult.

    • 13 June 2011 10:30 AM
  • icon

    Oh - I get it. This is an attempt to get into the Guinness Book of Records, for the "Most unrelated posts received on a sub-judice case story despite requests from the Editor not to..." category, innit?

    Well - we're in there I guess. And I'm in TWICE!! ;o)

    Thanks, Rosalind - fame at last!!

    • 10 June 2011 12:11 PM
  • icon

    She should have used lonres.com and then her valuations would have been spot on

    • 09 June 2011 22:43 PM
  • icon

    Taff:
    Because it is sub-judice: in English, the case is ongoing and nothing should be reported, other than the proceedings in open court, that could have a bearing on the case (and not, incidentally, the often lengthy debates that take place between counsel and m'lud in the absence of the jury).
    Would you wish newspapers not to report court cases until they are over? But the same applies to them about comments: during a trial, the newspaper would not publish letters about matters appertaining to the case. Same on telly: there is comment aplenty and background ... once the trial is over.
    The media are given privilege to report court proceedings accurately. But not to comment, else editors would be hauled up before judges for contempt of court.

    • 09 June 2011 12:27 PM
  • icon

    Am I being thick? Why post a thread .... and then immediately ask people not to comment on it until the case is over?

    Wouldn't it be better to wait for the case to finish and THEN post the story?

    • 09 June 2011 10:11 AM
  • icon

    Ros,

    But look………………………………..alright then, ill leave it but 2 words, Ryan Giggs.

    Free speech and all that – why not post a story about surveyors in general this afternoon and we can all slap our comments on that?

    Jonnie

    • 08 June 2011 15:02 PM
  • icon

    PeeBee,
    You will indeed be able to have your say when the court has made its decision, but not until then.
    Comments, including those which make assumptions about the outcome or could be construed as influencing the jury, are very unlikely to go down well with the judge.
    We would always advise readers when a case is sub-judice and therefore cannot be discussed or commented on.
    However, we are sure EAT readers would prefer on-going court cases to continue to be reported on the site.
    Meanwhile, we do trust in the good sense of our readers that they will make no further comment on this trial until it is concluded.

    • 08 June 2011 13:58 PM
  • icon

    Surely some comments can be posted so long as they would not influence the case?
    Most people don't know this person or anything other than the details given in the story so their comments would have no effect on the case.

    • 08 June 2011 13:57 PM
  • icon

    May I respectfully suggest that the story be therefore removed pending outcome.

    THEN we can have our say...

    • 08 June 2011 13:17 PM
  • icon

    Strictly no comments please. This case is sub judice.

    • 08 June 2011 11:34 AM
  • icon

    The trial continues: therefore no posts on this story, please.

    • 08 June 2011 10:23 AM
MovePal MovePal MovePal