Waterford man stole thousands from pensioner as part of €73,000 phishing scam
The solicitor acting for the defendant told the court that the incident had the "hallmark of stupidity." Stock Image.
A man who stole €5,000 from a pensioner as part of a €73,000 phishing scam has been given the opportunity to pay compensation in place of a prison sentence.
Reece Halligan (21) of 59 Grange Cohan, St John's Park, Waterford, was before Judge Kevin Staunton at Waterford District Court and pleaded guilty to money laundering on March 8, 2024.
Sergeant John Phelan told the court that the injured party, who is a woman in her 60s, received a text message purporting to be from Vodafone.
She clicked on the link in the message, and €73,000 was taken from her bank account.
The money was transferred to various accounts in a number of transactions, two of which were traced to an account owned by the defendant.
The total transferred to the defendant’s account was €5,000 in two payments for €3,000 and €2,000.
The account was new and there was no other activity on it.
The defendant told gardaí that he had sold an iPhone, which he had not properly cleared, and he believed could have led to the incident.
Sgt Phelan said that there was evidence that the account was under Mr Halligan’s control.
The court was told that the defendant had no previous convictions.
Acting for the defendant, solicitor Ken Cunningham told the court that his client's actions had the “hallmark of stupidity.”
He had set up the account with his own details, including photo verification, and he received no money for the use of the account.
“How anyone would think they would escape that borders on absurdity in the extreme,” said Mr Cunningham.
However, he said that the court is seeing a lot of these cases, and while those on the “lowest rung” are prosecuted, we never see the brains behind” the scams.
The injured party in this case was reimbursed, but no money was recovered during the Garda investigation because it had been withdrawn immediately after the transfer.
Mr Cunningham said his client wrote an apology letter to the court in which he said he regrets the incident and made a mistake.
He said he is about to be a father and wants to set a good example for his child.
To that end, he intends to go back to college and, if given a chance, would compensate the financial institution which is at the loss of the money.
Judge Staunton asked if the defendant had raised any money toward the compensation in the 18 months since he was charged.
Mr Cunningham said he had not and had only pleaded guilty in June.
However, he had “identified a serious wrongdoing” and was taking responsibility for his actions.
Judge Staunton pointed out that he had defrauded an “old age pensioner,” to which Mr Cunningham responded, “not that Mr Halligan knew that".
Mr Cunningham said that there are fewer and fewer of these cases coming before the court and that it appeared that the “message had been received”.
He also pointed out that the title of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 will appear on his record.
Th judge acknowledged the title of the act is “dramatic,” but this was a very serious offence.
“Imagine the stress this lady was brought under by Mr Halligan and others,” said Judge Staunton.
The judge said he did not accept that Mr Halligan was merely stupid and that he must have been paid something for the use of his account.
“He must have known what it would be used for and he didn’t care,” said Judge Staunton.
Mr Cunningham suggested that the court put the matter back for a period of time to allow Mr Halligan to raise the €5,000.
If he returns to court empty handed, the judge could impose a custodial sentence then.
Judge Staunton responded that he “was minded to send him to prison for eight months” but would but the matter back six months instead.
If the compensation is paid by then, he would suspend the sentence.
The matter was put back to March 10, 2026.
