Mother-to-be, 32, will give birth behind bars after being jailed for stealing £335,000 in scam

Mother-to-be, 32, will give birth behind bars after being jailed for stealing £335,000 from her employer in elaborate scam

  • Jaspreet Mann, 32, pocked thousands from the engineering company Meggitt
  • She pleaded guilty to fraud and acquiring criminal property in earlier hearing
  • On bail she became pregnant and attended Tuesday sentencing still expecting 
  • Judge Barry Berlin refused to take pity on her, branding scam ‘purely dishonest’

A mum-to-be who fell pregnant on bail for scamming £335,000 from her employers will give birth behind bars after being jailed for two-and-half years.

Jaspreet Mann, 32, pocked thousands of pounds from the engineering company where she worked before hoarding the stolen cash out of ‘pure greed’.

Warwick Crown Court heard the ‘talented’ businesswoman set up two bogus companies to siphon off funds while employed as a talent acquisitions recruiter by a firm called Meggitt.

After being caught, she went on to plead guilty to fraud by abuse of a position of trust and acquiring criminal property.

Jaspreet Mann, 32, wearing a protective face maskk outside Warwick Crown Court

Pregnant Jaspreet Mann, 32, was jailed at Warwick Crown Court for the scamming money out of her employers

Married Mann then learned she was expecting her first child, who is due to be born in October, while she was on bail awaiting sentencing.

Her solicitor Gurdeep Singh Garcha QC asked a judge to deal with her more leniently and ‘step outside the guidelines’ on the basis she would give birth in prison.

But Judge Barry Berlin ignored the plea for mercy and branded Mann ‘purely dishonest’ as he jailed her on Tuesday.

Sentencing, the judge said: ‘I cannot move outside the guidelines, and I don’t see why I should. What you did was purely dishonest.

‘You set up two companies, and while you were recruiting directly, which is what you were paid to do, you invoiced Meggitt’s from these companies.

‘Both of these companies were entirely controlled by you. They were set up for fraud. I have not seen any suggestion they were set up for any other reason.

The expecting mother was jailed at Warwick Crown Court(pictured) on Tuesday after a judge refused to spare her prison

The expecting mother was jailed at Warwick Crown Court(pictured) on Tuesday after a judge refused to spare her prison

‘This was premeditated fraud. It was born out of pure greed, and not need, as evidenced by the fact that much of the money you still had in your bank account.

‘What you did was systematic and well thought-out fraud over a lengthy period.’

The court heard Mann, of Stechford, Birmingham, ripped off the firm to the tune of £335,000 over a nine month period between September 2017 and June 2018.

Births behind bars

The Ministry of Justice has strict rules for pregnant women who are put behind bars. 

Prisoners who have their baby in prison can stay with the child for the first 18 months in a mother and baby unit.

Criminals already with a child under that age can also apply to bring them to prison with them.

Once the infant reaches 18 months social services arrange for them to be cared for. It can be by the prisoner’s parents or a foster family. 

Prosecutor Graeme Simpson said Mann had been responsible for approaching people with particular skills to recruit them.

It was expected she would approach people directly after spotting their potential for the company, but she was also allowed to make approaches through outside agencies.

Spotting a money-making scam, Mann set up two supposedly legitimate recruitment companies of her own, with her unsuspecting mother as a fellow-director.

Mr Simpson said: ‘Both companies were set up with the sole purpose of defrauding her employers.’

When Mann recruited someone directly she instead submitted bogus invoices

indicating the people had been recruited through her companies.

Her scam was rumbled as a result of an internal audit, and when Mann was challenged, she admitted what she had done and resigned.

Mr Garcha said ‘She is a lady of hitherto good character, a talented lady.

‘She has now fallen a huge distance because following today’s hearing she will be facing public humiliation as well as the loss of her liberty.

‘She is virtually unemployable because of her own wrongdoing.

‘This was not money she used for extravagant living. Much of the money was retained, and that’s why she was able to pay much of it back.’

He said the balance of the £272,000 she had voluntarily repaid was obtained through loans and by remortgaging.