Convicted fraudster Freddy David may lose home

Former HBFS boss defrauded 55 people – mostly Jewish and some of whom were members of his own Borehamwood community – out of a total of £14.5million.

Freddy David.. Photo credit: City of London Police/PA Wire

Fraudster Freddy David is facing the possible loss of his family home as prosecutors asked this week for valuation at preliminary assets hearing.

David, formerly of Hartfield Avenue, Elstree, is currently serving six years in prison after admitting last year to charges of obtaining a money transfer by deception and fraud by abuse of position.

A preliminary hearing into the David family’s assets at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday, attended by David’s wife, Hannah, but not by himself, focused on three properties. Mrs David owns half of each of two of the properties concerned, but there is no agreement about the ownership of the third.

The prosecution has asked for a valuation to be made of the David family home before the next hearing, due to take place on 17 and 18 December.

A compulsive gambler, David defrauded 55 people – mostly Jewish and some of whom were members of his own Borehamwood community – out of a total of £14.5million.

He used the money to fund his gambling habit, and, between 2005 and 2017, paid for his children’s school fees and family holidays abroad.

As his fraudulent actions – carried out in parallel with legitimate business of his financial services company, HBFS – came closer to discovery, David set up a so-called “Ponzi scheme” in which he paid older creditors with the investment funds of newer victims.

Many of those he defrauded were said to be elderly and vulnerable, and some had invested their life savings with David.

In May, City watchdog the Financial Conduct Authority banned David for life from the financial sector, deeming him “not a fit and proper person”.

HBFS is in liquidation, and on Thursday Her Honour Justice Taylor, QC, received initial representations in a hearing to decide what assets remain to David.

Once that is agreed, a subsequent court hearing will consider what of those assets might be apportioned to his victims. It is understood that few of them will receive anything close to their original investment.

read more:
comments