Case No. CR-2019-LDS-000669

438.Each of John and Charles had the benefit of use of a company credit card, from LWC as it happens though that is an unimportant detail, being a Barclaycard. As I understand it the payments from those cards formed the basis of Schedule 1 to the Petition. The majority of the payments on these credit cards were re-charged to the relevant director’s loan accounts. Such expenditure was therefore treated as personal expenditure and not company expenditure. There is a separate complaint about the use of DLAs and this aspect of the use of the Barclaycards adds nothing to it and will be considered in that context.439.However, certain matters charged to the Barclaycards were not re-charged to John and Charles by way of the DLAs. The claim in respect of John is a figure of £67,410.38 said to cover the period October 2015 to April 2017. The claim in respect of Charles is a sum of £5,871.15, said to cover the period October 2015 to 2017. 440.In his report Mr Lacey identifies from Schedule 1 of the Petition the sums charged to Barclaycard. He then identifies in relation to those sums, which of such sums have been re-charged to the individuals through director’s loan account as personal expenditure. The difference is the figures identified above. However, Mr Lacey’s Report does not deal with whether those balances were properly spent on company matters or whether they amounted to personal expenditure. The most that he says is that based on his “limited review” it appears that private expenditure generally appears to have been posted correctly to DLAs. The inference therefore is that the balance of such expenditure was properly company expenditure. No examples are given of personal expenditure not being posted to a relevant DLA. There was no cross-examination of John regarding any alleged use by him of his company credit care for personal expenditure which was not then posted to an appropriate DLA. I am not satisfied that this head of claim is made out.441.For completeness I should add that the only other item in Schedule 1 is not pursued as it took place prior to November 2015.