Michelle Yuksel, who ran Parisma Ltd, Parisma Textiles Ltd and Logistics2Go, is accused of nine counts of fraudulent conversion allegedly committed between 2010 and 2013. She denies all the charges.
Fraudulent conversion involves taking someone else’s money or property and converting or using it fraudulently for oneself or for the use and benefit of a third party.
Crown Advocate Simon Thomas, prosecuting, told the jury that it was the Crown’s case that despite knowing that her used-clothes businesses were in financial difficulty, she continued to take orders from a number of businessmen. Many of the companies that Ms Yuksel is alleged to have conned were based in developing countries, including Ghana and Nigeria.
‘The charges that the defendant faces in this trial involved her taking very large deposits from customers for the purpose of fulfilling an order for used clothes and instead of fulfilling those orders, using the money for other purposes, such as business or personal overheads and liabilities,’ Advocate Thomas told the jury.
‘In most cases that you will hear about, the customers received no goods at all. Most requested refunds, which they did not receive. Where customers did receive stock, this was only after a series of very long delays coupled with excuses. The stock that they received was substandard, less than had been ordered and inadequate. It seems the defendant may well have taken the view that the foreigners who she cheated were too far away to do anything about it.’
Advocate Thomas referenced one particular case involving Ghanian businessman Theophilus Ackorlie, who first contacted Ms Yuksel after visiting the Parisma website in 2010.
After correspondence between the two parties, the jury heard, Mr Ackorlie placed an order worth £11,213 plus £2,850 for shipping to Tema in Ghana.
At the time, Mr Ackorlie was told that he would receive his goods on 1 December 2010. But Advocate Thomas explained that it was the prosecution’s case that rather than being used to fulfil the order, £2,246.50 of his money was spent on staff wages, £400 worth of cash withdrawals were made, £398 was spent on rent and £538 was spent on sundry items – including one payment to Jersey Electricity.
A total of £6,000 was also used to pay wages, jurors heard, along with rent on the defendant’s home and business premises.
Despite a total of £2,217 allegedly being used to pay for stock, Advocate Thomas told the court that this ‘did not represent a serious attempt to fulfil Mr Ackorlie’s order’.
According to emails shown to the jury, Mr Ackorlie was told on 7 December that his order had been delayed, but would be ready to ship on 25 February 2011. He was asked for a further £1,953 in shipping costs, which was paid soon after.
However, the prosecution alleged that £1,293 of this amount was used to buy stock, £166 was used on car insurance and £150 was paid to Jersey Water.
After a number of delays and new delivery dates – spanning a number of months – Mr Ackorlie agreed to be refunded £13,167. However, this was never paid to him.
Advocate Thomas said: ‘This pattern of funds being paid by clients into accounts controlled by the defendant in order that their orders could be fulfilled and instead being spent on the defendant’s business expenses, or else on the defendant herself, will be a recurring feature of the evidence in this trial. It is the basis for the charges of fraudulent conversion on the indictment.’
The trial continues.
