CHAPTER ONE – FINANCIAL ABUSE
1.1 – Financial abuse: a growing concern
It is a sad fact of life that financial abuse is on the rise. In her first book on the topic of gifts made by attorneys and deputies,[1] the author identified this growing concern and anticipated there would be more cases of financial abuse making the headlines following the difficult economic and financial circumstances experienced by many during the Covid-19 pandemic. During this unprecedented period, and following social isolation imposed by the government, many vulnerable people found themselves detached from the outer world and their loved ones. There were fewer frank and open conversations, and it is not surprising that many unlawful actions went unnoticed at the time.
A report identifying these issues was published in February 2024 by STEP[2] together with the Alzheimer’s Society: “Loss of Mental Capacity: A Global Perspective”.[3] One of the key findings of the survey was “Financial abuse is increasing. It is most prevalent when there is uncertainty about whether a person lacks the mental capacity to make a decision or when a representative is exercising their authority on behalf of the uncapable person.”[4]
Recent headlines in 2024 and 2025 have also highlighted the fact that financial abuse is a known problem and on the increase. In February 2024, Lancs Live reported that Rachel Dawes was sentenced to two and a half years in prison.[5] Rachel Dawes was a carer who looked after a 60-year-old man who had learning difficulties. She was found to have stolen in excess of £30,000 from him over a period of three and half years (which included the period when the Covid-19 pandemic was rife). Rachel Dawes had access to and used the vulnerable person’s bank account to shop on Amazon Prime and eBay; purchase jewellery and take aways; and on betting. She also used his bank account to make several other payments. As a result, the vulnerable person she was meant to be caring for was left with a minimal amount of around £65.00 in his bank account. He could not afford food or other basic utilities, leaving him in precarious circumstances. Another carer subsequently discovered the problem when she noted irregular payments in the bank statements. This was investigated by the police, and the matter went to trial in the Liverpool Crown Court where subsequently, Rachel Dawes was found guilty and was sentenced to prison.
A few months later, in August 2024, another case was heard in the Swindon Crown Court and BBC News, Wiltshire reported that David Eggleton was sentenced to prison for five and a half years for misappropriating around £600,000 from his elderly aunt between 2018 and 2020.[6] In this case, David Eggleton acted in his capacity as an attorney for financial affairs, having been appointed as such by his aunt in 2017. Following his appointment, David Eggleton took advantage of his position and transferred large sums of his aunt’s money into his personal bank account. He used the funds for his own benefit which included purchasing cars, paying for holidays and paying off his mortgage. In this case, the aunt who still had the capacity to make decisions regarding her financial affairs, raised concerns when she became aware that her care home fees were not being paid, and revoked the power of attorney. The police launched an investigation and the Crown Prosecution Service subsequently prosecuted David Eggleton.
In the same month (August 2024), another case was heard in the Manchester Crown Court and was reported by The Mail on Sunday.[7] In this case, the vulnerable person had appointed a minister at her church, Paul Flowers, as her attorney for property and affairs. She placed her trust in a “man of cloth” and believed that he would manage her financial affairs sensibly given that he had experience working in the banking and finance sectors. However, Paul Flowers used his position to benefit himself. The vulnerable person’s monies were used to fund his personal and expensive habits. He withdrew around £70,0000 from her bank account and purchased alcohol from The Wine Society, paid for holidays and cruises abroad and spent monies on other luxurious items, none of which was for the vulnerable person’s benefit. The police launched an investigation and Paul Flowers subsequently admitted to acting fraudulently and pleaded guilty.
What is notable in the above cases is that the abuse was committed by someone who had no familial links to the vulnerable person. Sadly, family members are not immune to temptation and have been known to misuse their powers. In March 2025, BBC News reported that John Wilcox’s granddaughter, Amy (daughter of his stepson), had accepted a police caution for fraud for misappropriating funds from John Wilcox’s bank account.[8] It was reported that after being diagnosed with dementia, John Wilcox became delusional and paranoid, particularly after he was hospitalised during Covid when restrictions on social interaction were in place, and he could not have visitors. He felt isolated and allowed Amy to take charge by appointing her as his attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney instrument. Unfortunately for John Wilcox, the decision to give her control resulted in him being found in a hotel room, dishevelled, living in appalling conditions with no cleaning services or food and with only 16p in his bank account.
As seen in the above-mentioned cases, the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute attorneys following investigations carried out by the police. The Fraud Act 2006 enables the police to take action in serious cases of abuse. As part of their investigation, the police will interview the attorney, the deputy or anyone in a position of trust. If there is sufficient evidence that the person concerned committed fraud and depending on the level of abuse which has taken place or is about to take place, they will refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service.
However, in reality, only a few cases are prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. This may be for several reasons such as the inability of the victim to give a clear statement; or the victim refusing to give evidence for fear of being abandoned; or the perpetrator using legal loopholes and claiming that that the “gifts” were made voluntarily and at a time when P had capacity.
The author interviewed Paul Smith,[9] who worked for the police force as a vulnerable adult investigative co-ordinator and his role included putting together procedures to protect vulnerable people. In his view, there are not many detectives allocated to this field, and cases of this nature are dealt with mainly by police officers in uniform who very often write off the financial case as a civil matter. According to him, the main barriers to the police investigating financial abuse cases include:
- A lack of training and understanding within the police force.
- The victim having fluctuating capacity.
- A lack of consent from the victim to take the case further.
So, what happens in cases where there is some evidence of misappropriation of assets but which the police cannot or will not take further? In such circumstances, the civil courts can help. There are other means to stop financial abuse and bring justice to a victim. This book addresses the other options which can be considered, particularly when an attorney or a deputy breaches their duties and misuses their powers.[10]
1.2 – Attorney and deputy misconduct: the statistics
In many cases involving financial abuse, the perpetrator is often the person who has been trusted to manage the victim’s finances. They are given the legal authority to access P’s property and finances by way of a power of attorney instrument or a deputyship order.
It is noted from some cases that it was the attorney’s or deputy’s intention from the very start to deprive P of their assets for their own personal gain. They were fully aware that their actions were fraudulent and unlawful. However, there are also many cases where an attorney or a deputy made unlawful decisions because of a lack of understanding of the scope of their powers in that particular capacity. This issue was highlighted in the report published by STEP in February 2024: “It’s a good thing that the donor gets to choose their own attorney. However, they don’t always make the best choices. Education of the representatives (in respect of their role and authority) is lacking.”[11]
Drawing from the author’s own experience as well as the cases heard in the Court of Protection, there appear to be 2 main misconceptions which tend to influence an attorney’s or a deputy’s action:
- They believe they can do whatever they like with P’s monies and assets once they are appointed.
- They believe that P could or would have allowed them to take these actions if only they had capacity.
The author has had conversations with lay attorneys and deputies in charge of managing P’s finances. When faced with a potential decision which involves parting with P’s assets, their understanding of their role is alarming. The author referred to a few statements made by attorneys and deputies in her first book[12] and repeats them in this section since readers are likely to relate to them:
- “[P] had capacity and said that I could have the money.”
- “[P] would have wanted me to have the money if only they had capacity.”
- “It will all be mine soon anyway, so what is the problem?”
- “I deserve this, for all the sacrifice I am making.”
- “I will return the money, if [P] ever has a need for it.”
- “If [P] does not mind and is well cared for, what is the harm?”
Misconceptions such as these often lead to financial abuse, and it comes as no surprise that the number of complaints made to the Office of the Public Guardian[13] has risen over the past few years. A large number of these complaints is in relation to an attorney’s or a deputy’s conduct regarding their management of P’s financial affairs.
To put matters into context, in 2018/2019, the Office of the Public Guardian carried out 2,883 investigations. This increased to 3,099 in 2019/2020. There was a decline in the number of investigations carried out in 2020/2021, mainly due to the Office of the Public Guardian not being able to accept cases for investigation during the pandemic when the risk of spreading the coronavirus disease was very high. With the easing of rules on social distancing post-pandemic, complaints and investigations are once again on the rise. The investigations accepted by the Office of the Public Guardian increased from 2,089 to 2,464 in 2021/2022;[14] from 2,464 to 2,849 in 2022/2023;[15] from 2,849 to 3,647 in 2023/2024;[16] and further increased from 3,647 to 3,823 in 2024/2025.[17]
1.3 – Spotting the signs of financial abuse
It is often thought that abuse takes place “behind closed doors” and is therefore difficult to identify. Whilst this may be true in some circumstances, there are often telltale signs which indicate that someone may be taking advantage of P’s vulnerability. It is vital that the public is better informed of these signs.
Those who are involved in P’s care and the management of their affairs – for instance family members, close friends, carers, the banks where P holds their accounts, the local authority, care homes, etc – are likely to be the first ones to identify a potential mismanagement of P’s financial affairs by their attorney or deputy.
The author lists below a few of these telltale signs and encourages readers to be vigilant and look out for them:[18]
- Large or frequent withdrawals from P’s bank account through the ATM.
- Adding someone else’s name to P’s bank account, without specifying they are P’s attorney or deputy.
- Signatures on cheques that do not match.
- Applying for credit in P’s name.
- Missing jewellery or other valuables.
- Non-payment of P’s regular outgoings or utility bills resulting in lack of adequate food, heating or clothing.
- Non-payment of P’s care home fees.
- Unexpected changes to P’s Will.
- P deferring to someone else to answer for them.
- P looking dishevelled, unkempt and malnourished.
- Controlling or restricting P’s personal contact with others by turning visitors away.
- Controlling or restricting P’s communications with others by denying P of their telephone and/or not allowing them to answer calls.
Financial abuse can also be subtle, such as the purchase of a car when P is no longer able to drive or the purchase of a lawnmower when P does not have a garden to tend to.
Concerns of this nature can be emotionally charged, and it is not uncommon for practitioners to receive enquiries from potential clients asking whether they can “take someone to court”. Whilst court proceedings may be an option, other avenues should be explored in the first instance. In Chapter 5 of this book, the author lists other courses of action which should be considered before escalating matters to the Court of Protection or the High Court.
| Author’s Note: Is financial abuse a rising concern which our society is facing? Or has it always been a problem but previously went undetected due to limited awareness and available resources? It is the author’s view that financial abuse is not a novel problem. Recent factors such as an increase in wealth; an ageing population; more awareness through social media; legal responsibilities placed on organisations such as the Office of the Public Guardian, the police, and the Local Authority, have led to more cases being detected at an early stage. |
1.4 – Case Study: Rohan
| Rohan is a 76-year-old widower. He was married to Uma, and they had a daughter – Anita. Ten years ago, Rohan and Uma instructed solicitors to make their Wills and a Lasting Power of Attorney in respect of their finances. Their wishes were simple and straightforward: they wished to leave their estate to each other with the provision that Anita would be the sole beneficiary upon the death of the surviving parent. Wills were made to this effect. They also appointed each other and Anita as their attorneys on a joint and several basis. Their Property and Affairs Lasting Power of Attorney was registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.
Rohan and Uma had been married for 45 years when Uma died of a heart attack 2 years ago. Her death was sudden and took Rohan and Anita by surprise. After Uma’s death, Rohan became withdrawn and lost interest in a lot of things, including his finances. With Uma gone, Rohan turned to Anita for assistance and company. Anita initially set up Rohan’s finances in such a way that Rohan would be able to manage effortlessly. She made sure that all utility bills were paid by direct debit from Rohan’s current account, which Rohan had access to. Rohan’s pension easily covered his monthly outgoings. He also had savings of £120,000 and these funds were transferred in a separate bank account for a rainy day – an account which Anita managed in her capacity as Rohan’s attorney.[19] Rohan only sought Anita’s input if any major decisions had to be made. Last year, Rohan started showing signs of confusion and forgetfulness. He would leave the front door open overnight; forget to cook and/or eat for a couple of days. Anita arranged for Rohan to see his GP and Rohan was subsequently diagnosed with vascular dementia. It became clear that Rohan could no longer make certain financial decisions and needed assistance if he were to remain living at home on his own. Anita engaged the services of a care agency, and a carer named Seema became Rohan’s main carer. The arrangement was that Anita would visit Rohan at the weekends; do the grocery shopping; and keep the fridge well stocked. Seema would visit Rohan on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; cook for Rohan on those days and provide him with personal care. The arrangement worked well for the first 3-4 months. However, soon after, Seema found Rohan in soiled clothing on a Monday morning. Rohan informed Seema that he had not eaten, and Seema noted that the fridge was not stocked. Seema telephoned Anita but was unable to reach her. When she finally managed to speak to Anita, Anita was evasive and explained that she had been on a cruise with her friends. Seema asked if there were other relatives or friends whom she could contact in the event Anita was not available. Anita was clear that no one else but her should visit or get involved in her father’s care. Anita promised to purchase grocery items the next day, a promise she never kept. This became a regular pattern and started having a detrimental effect on Rohan. Rohan was not set up for online banking. Even though he had access to his bank card, he no longer remembered his pin number to withdraw cash from the ATM. Anita refused to provide Seema or the care agency with funds to purchase food items for Rohan when this was requested. At times, Anita also forgot to pay the care agency’s invoices. On recent occasions when Anita visited Rohan during the week – predominantly to intercept and collect the post – Seema noticed that she drove a brand-new Jaguar and carried an expensive designer handbag. Seema became increasingly concerned. On one of her visits, she found Rohan upset after he had opened his post. Rohan was confused. He did not know what to do and asked Seema to check the papers. Seema looked at a couple of bank statements which showed multiple online purchases from Amazon as well as a large payment in the sum of £7,500 made to P&O Cruises a few months ago. Rohan’s current account was overdrawn, and his savings account now showed a balance of only £15,000. The other letters suggested there were several overdue electricity and water bills. |
Spotting the signs:
The author has presented a basic case study and acknowledges that other cases may involve greater complexity. However, the purpose of this exercise is to bring to the reader’s attention to typical signs which would often trigger alarm bells for carers, family members, neighbours, friends, co-attorneys, etc.
In this case study, the telltale signs which would cause Seema to be concerned include:
- Non-payment of regular utility bills and the care agency’s invoices, suggesting mismanagement and/or insufficient funds in Rohan’s bank account.
- Not purchasing food and other basic items for Rohan’s use.
- A payment in the sum of £7,500 made to a travel agency when Rohan had not been away and there were no upcoming holidays planned for him.
- Unusual online expenses, particularly when Rohan is not set up for online banking and items had not been delivered to his home for his use.
- A significant drop in Rohan’s savings which has not been accounted for.
- A notable upgrade in Anita’s lifestyle.
- Anita’s evasiveness when being asked simple questions relating to Rohan’s wellbeing.
- Controlling and limiting Rohan’s contact with others.
What can be done?
Where a vulnerable person like Rohan is at risk, immediate steps should be taken to (i) safeguard Rohan; and (ii) try and prevent further potential financial abuse from taking place. The author addresses this in Chapter 5 of this book.
MORE INFORMATION / PURCHASE THE BOOK ONLINE
[1] Published in March 2024: https://www.lawbriefpublishing.com/Court
ofProtectionGifting/.
[2] STEP is a global professional body comprising lawyers, accountants and other professionals who help families plan for the future.
[3] This report was published together with the Alzheimer’s Society and a copy can be downloaded by accessing the following link: http://step.org/
research-reports/mental-capacity.
[4] Page 7 of the Loss of Mental Capacity: A Global Perspective report.
[5] ‘Despicable’ carer stole £30k from disabled man to fund Netflix and takeaways – LancsLive, by Wesley Homes and Jon Macpherson, 28
Feb 2024
[6] Wiltshire man jailed for stealing £600k through power of attorney – BBC News by Bea Swallow, 1 August 2024
[7] ‘Crystal Methodist’ former Co-op bank boss Paul Flowers facing jail over £100,000 friend swindle | Daily Mail Online by Lix Hull, Northern Correspondent, 25 July 2024
[8] Isolated and confused: How a granddad ‘vanished’ from his family – BBC News by Sue Mitchell and Ben Milne, 29 March 2025
[9] Paul Smith is now a financial crime specialist with over 30 years of experience in this field.
[10] See Chapter 5 of this book.
[11] STEP report on “Loss of Mental Capacity: A Global Perspective”,
page 24.
[12] Court of Protection: A Practical Guide to Gifting, Chapter 5, para 5.1.
[13] The Office of the Guardian (OPG) was established in 2007 to safeguard the interests of P and supervise deputies. Part of their role involves carrying out investigations where there are safeguarding issues and/or financial abuse concerns relating to deputies and registered attorneys.
[14] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/opg-annual-report-and-accounts-2021-to-2022/opg-annual-report-and-accounts-2021-to-2022
[15] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/office-of-the-public-guardian-annual-report-2022-to-2023
[16] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a1092ffc8e12
ac3edb03ff/opg-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-to-2024.pdf
[17] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/opg-annual-report-and-accounts-2024-to-2025
[18] The author recommends visiting https://www.step.org/mental-capacity/spot-the-signs
[19] Since Rohan’s Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) appointed Rita and Anita jointly and severally, the LPA instrument was still valid after Uma’s death and Anita could continue acting as Rohan’s attorney.