Waterford footballer ordered to pay €2,000 to victim of phishing scam
The judge in the case said that the injured party should receive the compensation for the stress the scam had caused. Stock Image.
A Waterford football player has been ordered to pay €2,000 to a woman whose bank account was robbed and the money transferred to his account.
Callum Stringer (23), of 10 Wayburn Close, Earlscourt, Waterford, pleaded guilty to money laundering at a recent sitting of Waterford District Court before Judge Kevin Staunton.
The court heard that on August 27, 2022, €4,680 was withdrawn from an ATM in Cork.
The money had been transferred from the injured party’s account to an online Money Jar account before going to the defendant’s Revolut account.
It was then converted to cryptocurrency, where it remains today.
The court was told that the injured party received an email purporting to be from An Post requesting payment for a customs charge on a package.
The injured party provided her details and was called by a Dublin number and the person said they were calling from PTSB.
The injured party provided her financial details, which triggered the transaction.
The court was told the defendant has no previous convictions.
Acting for the defendant, Hilary Delahunty told the court that despite his guilty plea, his client was not the instigator of the transaction.
He said the person responsible had been apprehended, and their conviction was struck out by Judge Staunton at Waterford District Court when compensation was paid.
He asked the judge to make the same decision regarding Mr Stringer.
Mr Delahunty explained that his client was on a night out when a friend approached him about using his Revolut account for €50.
The defendant had run out of money and agreed, not knowing the name on the account would not be changed back.
Mr Stringer knew this friend through sport, with both being “excellent football players”.
However, he said, the injured party has been recompensated by their bank and the defendant has raised €2,000 himself in compensation.
He said his client is a well-established player who has most recently been injured and is therefore not being paid.
The WWETB provided a reference for the defendant in which they said the trouble he is in is “out of character”.
Mr Delahunty told the court that his client had written a letter of apology to the victim.
In the letter, Mr Stringer said that his decision to sell his Revolut card was “naive, stupid and out of character.”
He said that night he had not considered the impact of the decision and wishes he had not been so “self-centred.”
The defendant said that he was sorry to the injured party as well as all those who spent time and resources investigating the incident.
Mr Delahunty said that at the time of the first case, his client was not given the opportunity to contribute to the compensation.
He said that while he did not want to “corral the court into a decision,” but he did not think it fair that the first defendant was given the benefit of making that amends and his client was not.
This was a decision sometimes made by “stupid, young males and females.”
Judge Staunton said he “doesn’t buy” that defence, which “everyone tells.” He had read the defendant’s letter and noted he was “articulate and clever,” and his version of the story did not make sense.
“I don’t accept that for a moment,” said Judge Staunton.
Mr Delahunty countered that the story makes sense when one considers that these defendants are “young and have no sense.” Judge Staunton said that both defendants really should have been before the court at the same time.
But, because they have been dealt with separately, the court is “ somewhat hamstrung” in its decision because the defendant “does deserve the same consideration as his friend.”
The judge also said that he realised the injured part had been compensated, but that only gave her back her money.
“These offences are not only financial. The amount of stress and anxiety is immeasurable,” said Judge Staunton.
The judge said this was not a “victimless crime” and even though the injured party was returned her money, the bank was still at a loss.
However, he would not make a compensation order with the bank.
Judge Staunton ordered the defendant to pay €2,000 to the injured party for the stress he caused her.
In line with the judgement made in respect of the defendant’s friend, Judge Staunton struck out the charge against Mr Stringer.
“Mr Stringer is an extremely lucky man,” said Judge Staunton.
