Serial fraudster who ran string of letting agencies jailed for four and a half years

A letting agent who scammed dozens of tenants and landlords out of more than £220,000 of rents and deposits has been jailed for four and a half years.

In one of the very worst cases involving a letting agent, Martin Marcus, 52, of Bushey, Hertfordshire, was sentenced at Harrow Crown Court on Monday after admitting five counts of fraud following a complex four-year investigation carried out by Barnet Council’s Trading Standards team.

Marcus had pleaded guilty to the charges seven days into his trial.

The court heard how he fronted a string of letting agencies and used numerous aliases between 2009 and 2015 to pocket £221,000 from more than 60 tenants and landlords.

In what Judge Freya Newbery described as “an elaborate con trick”, Marcus repeatedly offered tenants properties he had no right to let out, took deposits from multiple tenants for the same property, moved in different tenants than those promised, and used a variety of methods and excuses to hold on to thousands in deposits and rents.

Prior to sentencing, the court heard impact statements from victims describing how Marcus’s scam had left some of them tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket, some without a home and others unable to care for ill relatives.

Gordon Menzies for the prosecution told the court: “This is a case which could be described as fraud, dishonesty or stealing. It was not clever but it was fraud and it worked.”

Marcus used a number of company names including JMG Residential Ltd, Interlocate, Corporate Relocation and Churchill Residential, and used aliases including the names Jeffrey Lewis, Martin Champ and Robert Martin when carrying out the deception.

Requests from landlords and tenants for their money to be returned were met with excuses and in many cases cheques which bounced.

Mr Menzies told the court how landlords and tenants had been reassured that their money was held in a “ring fenced client account”.

But Trading Standards investigators found transactions from the account including payments to Virgin Active, Easyjet, payments in Spain, payments to mobile phone companies and payments to Marcus’s son.

Mr Menzies told the jury: “The client account was many things but it wasn’t a client account.”

He also told the court that analysis of bank accounts revealed that Marcus was in financial trouble with bank records showing that he had taken out multiple payday loans.

One landlady looking to rent out her property in Hertfordshire was contacted by Marcus who said he had a prospective tenant who was a HBOS employee, and who would be moving from New York to the UK for two years. The tenant did not exist.

When she visited the property she found Marcus had moved in a family of eight who had been living in London for 12 years, and who had paid £3,200 to a man calling himself Martin Champ.

Marcus had moved in tenants with no proper identification checks. They never paid rent and before they were eventually evicted they caused thousands of pounds of damage to furniture, brand new kitchen fixtures and fittings and to appliances. The rent from the property had been intended to help pay for the care of the landlady’s mother.

At the same time a student contacted Marcus about renting the same property with several friends. She handed over more than £2,000 to secure the house, but after paying the money was unable to contact Marcus and the money was never returned.

Judge Newbery said that the fraud reached ‘almost farcical proportions’ with properties being let out over and over again.

In another case Marcus promised a landlord that he had found tenants for his property. The tenants, he was told, were a family who owned a successful winery in New Jersey, USA. He was even shown a website for the company.

But the Trading Standards investigation would reveal that the creation of the website could be traced back to Marcus’ lettings agency.

In some cases, other letting agents had complained to Marcus about him lifting photos of properties they were advertising, and then marketing the properties himself.

The court heard that on one occasion Marcus even attempted to let out the house that he himself was in the process of being evicted from for the non-payment of rent.

Sentencing Marcus, Judge Newbery said: “You used each of your lettings agencies as a vehicle to defraud potential tenants, tenants and landlords. It’s been said that because of your financial difficulties you were robbing Peter to pay Paul.

“Typically you would take money from landlords and tenants and not pay either back. Your tactic was to close down when it became too difficult and reopen under a different name. Even after you were interviewed in 2015 you ploughed on using the same modus operandi.

“When taken all together this was quite an elaborate con trick which you used over and over.

“There was a significant human cost to what you did with a considerable amount of stress involved for people trying to get their money back and this is something which has to be taken into account when sentencing you.”

Four other defendants, Nadim Khan, Michael Page, James Day and Stacey Heffernan, were found not guilty of the same charges following a six-week trial. Martin Marcus’s wife Corinne Marcus was acquitted of a charge of money laundering.

Cllr Richard Cornelius, Leader of Barnet Council, said: “This trial follows a long and very complex investigation led by the council’s Trading Standards team into a fraud which left a great many people out of pocket.”

The case illustrates the ease with which a conman was able to set up letting agency after letting agency. Currently, he would be able to do so again, although recently enacted legislation will make it a legal requirement for letting agents to keep client money in a separate account, and will also set up a database of rogue agents and landlords along with banning powers. The database will be available to central and local government, but not to prospective tenants and landlords, and not to agents who might be recruiting staff.

x

Email the story to a friend



13 Comments

  1. Oliver Wharmby

    Another wonderful example of how easy it is for letting agents to take advantage of the consumer. No doubt they had no Client Money Protection. Legislation requiring agents to have segregated client accounts shall not stop fraudulent agents intent on misappropriating client money.

    Report
    1. Peter

      A fraudster, not abiding by legislation, whatever next.

      Report
    2. PeeBee

      Another wonderful example of how easy it is for letting agents to take advantage of the consumer.

      The news is full of stories of dodgy people in responsible positions taking advantage.  One day it’s Estate Agents… next it’s Insurance Brokers… then Solicitors… then Insurance Brokers… Politicians… Insurance Brokers – it goes on and on.

      You simply don’t know who you can trust these days.

      Report
      1. Mark Walker

        I trust you, PeeBee.

        Report
      2. Bless You

        its time letting agents had no  control of £££ completly. Maybe tenants should start using solicitors to act for them.

        letting agents take on far to much responsibility then they should be allowed to .

        like why cant the tenant  put the deposit into DPS instead of trust the agent to do so….etc etc

        Report
        1. beverley@tpsbarnet.co.uk

          We have been in business 23 years and have never mistreated client money. Instead of tarring all agents with the same brush, perhaps Tenants should be educated into looking for an agent that is regulated, has client money protection and is registered with a governing body. To suggest that Tenants register the deposit themselves is ludicrous, how many would actually do it??? not many.

          We would welcome a ban on all unregistered agents and agree that there are some very unscrupulous people out there which in turn give us all a bad reputation.

           

          Report
          1. seenitall

            I know the government can make a law that we have to give out a leaflet on how to rent – …….

             

            as others have said – its fraud  they are not going to take any notice of the laws of the land.

            Report
  2. Ding Dong

    sadly you can have all the legislation in the world but that would not stop someone wanting to defraud “uninformed” landlords and tenants.

    if the authorities want to reduce the risk, the they need to spend huge amounts advertising the position with regards using a CMP and professional agent.  Safe Agent are somewhat like a “chocolate fireguard” as their presence to layman tenants and landlords is almost zero.

     

    Report
  3. Oliver Wharmby

    We recently refused to offer PI cover to a new agent due to zero experience in the property sector and zero qualifications. They said they would join the PRS who unlike TPOS do not check for evidence of PI albeit do request they have it! Its agents like this that are having a field day taking advantage of weak systems of control and vulnerable consumers.  My understanding is the PRS have no code of conduct either!

    Report
    1. smile please

      To be fair its not just estate agents, Any company can start up without PI

      Report
  4. Mart45

    Apart from the firm names listed in the article, Martin Marcus also operated as Anyfields using the same fraudulent tactics:

    https://www.allagents.co.uk/anyfields/

    Report
  5. Oliver Wharmby

    The point is that someone with no qualifications or experience is able to set up shop, open a client account and start trading for six months before clearing off with the pot of deposits and rent. This is not acceptable!

    Report
    1. WPD

      Totally agree with Oliver Wharmby.

      Yes, there will always be fraud by why make it so easy for the fraudsters? All agents should be licenced by one regulatory body with the teeth to enforce. A lot of tenants arrive in London from abroad and assume that agents are all properly regulated as they are in many other countries. They are easy meat for the agencies who engage in sharp practice and outright fraud.

      Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.