Woman got $40,209 in welfare fraud

Press, 24 July 1986, Page 4

Woman got $40,209 in welfare fraud

A woman who was overpaid $40,209 by the Department of Social Welfare over six years was sent to prison for six months when she appeared for sentence in the District Court yesterday. Judge Frampton told Simone Lynn McClure, aged 25 (Mr S. C. Barker), that offences of defrauding the Welfare Department were now extremely prevalent. Any penalty, he said, must reflect not only the seriousness of the offence, but act as a deterrent to others.

At an earlier hearing it was stated that McClure transferred from an emergency unemployment benefit to a domestic purposes benefit and an ac-

commodation benefit in January, 1978. The defendant applied for renewal of these benefits on six subsequent occasions, each time stating she received no income in the previous 52 weeks. The department was not able to confirm allegations that McClure had been employed by the Christchurch City Council. In November, last year, after being visited by an officer of the department, she admitted offending. As a result, McClure was overpaid $35,179 in domestic purpose payments, and $5030 in accommodation benefits. McClure had started repaying the debt.

THREE MONTHS JAIL Maureen O’Connor,

aged 32, was sent to prison for three months after being convicted of defrauding the Social Welfare Department of $19,330 in domestic purposes benefit payments over a period of two years.

The Judge said it was a case of a deliberate fraud, which came to light after the defendant’s de facto partner pressured her into applying for the Family Care Benefit.

It was again a case where a deterrent sentence was necessary. Although a lesser amount was involved than that of the previous defendant, it was nonetheless a substantial amount, the scope

of which would justify a custodial sentence, said the Judge. Counsel, Mr A. M. Mclntosh, said there had been no lavish lifestyle or increase in assets as a result of the offending. The defendant accepted that compensation must be paid, and the department was able to'recover the overpayment as his client would be in receipt of a benefit, “of some sort or another” for some years, said Mr Mclntosh.

In both cases the Crown was represented by Mr Mark Zarifeh.

An application for suppression of O’Connor’s name was refused.