The DPD depot in Stoke-on-Trent
A DPD warehouse worker 'over labelled' parcels to divert them from their intended recipients. Amardeep Singh then went to collect the packages, many which contained expensive mobile phones and devices, from shops in the city and Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard the 31-year-old - described as a hard-working immigrant - would then pass them to a man who paid him £20 per parcel. But his ruse - carried out over the festive period - was rumbled when he was seen on CCTV.
DPD intercepted many of the diverted parcels but the total intended loss to the company was estimated to be £26,400. The actual loss to DPD was £8,750. Now Singh has been sentenced to 20 months in prison, suspended for two years.
Prosecutor Tom Kenning said Singh was employed as a warehouse operative at DPD, in Shelton Boulevard, Etruria, between November 7, 2022 and January 12, 2023. Mr Kenning said: "He abused that position. He placed false labels on parcels to divert them from their intended recipients. He diverted the parcels to various shops in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle. The false labels had been purchased via Parcel Monkey.
"CCTV was obtained from some of the shops which showed the diverted parcels being collected by either the defendant or his wife in the presence of the defendant. Some parcels were intercepted by DPD before they were collected from the shops by the defendant or his wife. When the false label was peeled back the original label could then be seen.
"The contents of the parcels intercepted by DPD were of high value and included Smartphones, an iPhone and Samsung, an iMac computer and an Apple watch.
"When a parcel goes missing in transit DPD is required to reimburse the sender for that loss. The total intended loss to DPD was estimated to be in the region of £26,400. The loss actually caused to DPD was in the region of £8,750 as some of the parcels were intercepted."
Singh was escorted to the office to be interviewed when he arrived at work at 11am on January 12, 2023. He said he had been approached by a man at a temple in Smethwick who asked if he wanted to make £20 per parcel. He was provided with a burner phone and he collected parcels around four or five times for the man who would collect parcels from him. He said he had tried to contact the man but the calls would not connect. He suspected something was wrong so he threw his SIM card away.
The court heard Singh used his phone during the interview. It was seized and investigators found it had been factory reset during the interview.
Singh, of Firs Drive, Hounslow, Middlesex, pleaded guilty to fraud by abuse of position and fraud by false representation. His pleas were on an accepted basis that he was approached by a man and asked if he would be prepared to redirect parcels. He agreed and admits he collected the parcels that were rediverted and delivered them to the man but he did not know what the man did with them.
He admits on occasions he used his wife to collect parcels on his behalf but she was unaware of his fraudulent activity. He did not know the contents of each package. However, he accepts the estimated value of the parcels intended to be redirected was £26,400.
Jamie Scott, mitigating, asked Recorder Jeremy Lasker to suspend the sentence. He said Singh had no previous convictions and was genuinely remorseful. Mr Scott said: "He has matured in the two-and-a-half years since the offending and he has learnt his lesson. The impact of these proceedings has been felt by him. He has moved back to London and works six days a week as a motorcyclist delivery driver. He is an example of a hard-working immigrant trying to make the best of himself. His motivation was money but not greed."
He added: "He will have to complete unpaid work on his rest day. He meets all the criteria for a suspended sentence."
Recorder Lasker said he could suspend the sentence but told Singh he had 'come within an inch of going to prison'. As part of the order Singh must complete 200 hours unpaid work.
Recorder Lasker said: "It is noticeable that you only commenced your employment with DPD in November 2022. So it was not long afterwards that you began this dishonest course of conduct. What you did was to use false labels which had been purchased in advance to enable you to divert parcels, parcels which you believed to be of value.
"And you diverted the parcels to various addresses where you and your wife would collect them. You appear to have targeted mobile phones. On occasions you diverted an Apple watch and a computer. You did this by using false labels that you purchased and filled out with new addresses that you then placed over the original addresses.
"I have no doubt this had a significant effect both on the person expecting to receive a parcel through DPD as well as your employers who were obliged to make up the loss. These offences were committed over the Christmas period so it is highly likely that many of the packages you diverted were intended as Christmas presents to friends and family."
The judge said the Court of Appeal in 2013 stated this type of offending 'causes alarm, disappointment and perhaps distress and can properly be distinguished from theft by an employee'. Recorder Lasker added: "This was a well thought out plan. It involved a degree of preparation and sophistication. The false address labels must have been prepared in advance and it was down to you to decide which parcels were worthy of diversion.
"I am going to suspend the sentence but you have come within an inch of going into prison and serving that 20 month sentence."