A fraudster posed as a millionaire and scammed rich friends and relatives out of more than £420,000 by persuading them to invest in his fake designer handbag business, a court heard today.
Jack Watkin, 26, allegedly promised his victims a share of the profits if they loaned him cash to buy and sell expensive Hermes bags.
But Chester Crown Court heard neither the handbags or any profit ever materialised and instead Watkin used the cash to fund his extravagant lifestyle.
When his victims started demanding their money back, Watkin made up excuses, failed to turn up to meetings or tried to offer them fake watches or less valuable handbags in return, it is alleged.
He was caught when two women he allegedly scammed lured him to a meeting – where police arrived and arrested him.
Yesterday pony-tailed Watkin, of Alderley Edge, Cheshire, went on trial accused of seven counts of fraud and two of theft involving six victims between December 2019 and August 2024. He denies the charges.
Prosecutor Matthew Kerruish-Jones said the case centred around the high-end French designer brand Hermes.
The fashion house only allows select customers to buy their exclusive handbags, which often have a higher second-hand re-sale value than when bought new.
Mr Kerruish-Jones said Watkin persuaded one family friend to invest by claiming he had a ‘personal relationship’ with a director at Hermes that afforded him special access to their luxury bags.
He also allegedly posed as a millionaire on social media to persuade his victims to handover cash.
The barrister said: ‘The prosecution allege that this defendant defrauded multiple individuals with the offer of a legitimate business venture to purchase and sell exclusive handbags.
‘The defendant put forward the outward façade of a glamorous and luxurious lifestyle. This it seems engendered trust and led a number of individuals to loan him large sums of money on the promise of either a financial return, or luxury items. Neither of which materialised.
‘The reality was once he had been provided the money it would not be repaid as agreed, leaving multiple individuals in this case out of pocket for large sums of money. The defendant would make excuses and avoid the complainants, all the while spending large sums of money on maintaining his seemingly lavish lifestyle.’
The court heard that Watkin’s defrauded Hannah Jakes, one of his long-time friends, out of more than £233,000, while businesswoman Christine Colbert, who owns a designer boutique, lost £78,000.
Watkin is also accused of stealing a blue Hermes bag, worth £21,000, and a Goyard alligator handbag, worth £8,000 from Ms Colbert’s store, Dress Cheshire, in Prestbury, Cheshire.
He also allegedly defrauded his own property developer father, Jason Watkin, 55, out of £30,000.
The jury heard Watkin’s relationship with his father ‘soured’ when he refused to loan his son £100,000 for his business. Watkin also claimed his father was ‘unsympathetic’ when trading became difficult during the Covid pandemic.
But Mr Kerruish-Jones said: ‘Mr Watkin was concerned by the amount of money the defendant appeared to be spending on his social life, despite having no formal employment.’
The court heard another alleged victim was businessman James Irlam, who was introduced to Watkin via his mother-in-law. She was a friend of Watkin’s mother, Jo Stringfellow.
Mr Irlam initially bought a Hermes Birkin bag off Watkin for his wife’s birthday, then eventually handed over around £65,500 for three more bags after being persuaded to invest in a ‘business proposal.’
But when neither the bags or any returns on his investment emerged, Mr Irlam began legal proceedings against Watkin, the jury was told.
Barman Andor Farkas, who worked in Harrods, in London, also lost around £14,000 in the scam, it is claimed.
Watkin allegedly told Mr Farkas he was a millionaire and, after the pair became friends, promised him a ‘financial return’ if he allowed him to spend money on his personal credit card.
But, Mr Kerruish-Jones said, Watkin never repaid any of the money back.
The final victim, Naheem Akhtar, was introduced to Watkin via social media.
Mr Akhtar said Watkin gave the ‘perception’ on social media that he was a millionaire and was involved in the fashion industry.
He agreed to transfer £840 to Watkin’s bank account for him to source a pair of ‘summer walk’ shoes by the Italian designer brand Lora Piana. But Mr Akhtar never received the shoes and when he chased Watkin he was met with ‘endless excuses including that he was in hospital,’ the court heard.
The jury of seven women and five men was told that Watkin was finally caught in March last year when Ms Colbert finally lost patience and put a post on Instagram warning the public to stay away from him because ‘she had been defrauded.’
Ms Jakes saw the post and got in touch with Ms Colbert. The pair realised they had both been duped by Watkin, the court heard, and Ms Jakes agreed to set up a meeting with him in Alderley Edge.
When Watkin arrived she contacted Ms Colbert who in turn called detectives from Cheshire police, who arrived to arrest him.
The court heard that, when questioned, Watkin claimed his lifestyle was funded by his mother and a partner, who he refused to name.
He claimed it was his intention to repay Ms Colbert, but he needed more time. He also suggested she owed him cash, Mr Kerruish-Jones said.
He claimed Ms Jakes was a family friend and ‘flexible’ about the outstanding money he owed.
But when officers began to investigate Watkin’s finances they discovered that he had been pawning some of the luxury goods and had been made bankrupt a year earlier.
Despite having no job, his outgoings also showed he spent large sums on holidays, hotels and designer goods, the court heard.
Mr Kerruish-Jones said a forensic accountant had been instructed by Watkin to examine payments and receipts to and from his alleged victims.
‘There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the figures involved in terms of those payments,’ the barrister said. ‘Rather, the defendant will assert he provided a number of the ordered items, made cash repayments, made purchases on behalf of the complainants or the money received by him was simply unrelated to the alleged criminal offence.’
But the barrister told the jury: ‘You may ask yourself if this was a legitimate venture why the defendant repeatedly borrowed money from each of these complainants and whether his explanation stands up to scrutiny when you consider his lifestyle. We say simply that this was a dishonest enterprise.’
The case, expected to last two weeks, continues.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
