Express & Star

Wolverhampton father and son in car fraud told to pay £400,000

Father and son car-clocking conmen, who produced forged MoT certificates and service histories before selling the doctored vehicles, have been ordered to stump up more than £400,000.

Published
Inderjit Sohal, left, and father Gurdip Sohal, right

The man behind the scam, Inderjit Sohal, and his father Gurdip Sohal, who have served sentences for the original offences, face going back to jail if it is not paid within three months.

The Sohals, of Lichfield Road, Willenhall, Wolverhampton, had both denied two charges of conspiring to defraud car buyers - but were convicted after a trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court.

And at Warwick Crown Court in January last year Inderjit, who was also convicted of money-laundering, was jailed for three years, and his 60-year-old father for 28 months.

At that time a hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act was adjourned for an investigation into their finances, and there has since been a three-day hearing at which the two men disputed the figures put forward by prosecutor Mark Jackson.

After considering the evidence called at that hearing, Judge Peter Cooke commented: “I reject Inderjit Sohal’s sworn testimony as fundamentally dishonest.

“Throughout these proceedings he has demonstrated he is a thoroughly dishonest man and has attempted to deceive me with false documents.”

Inderjit Singh Sohal

He found Inderjit’s benefit from his illegal activities had been a total of £217,829.01 – and that his assets, including money in a bank account and ‘hidden assets’ came to £194,225.53.

In relation to Gurdip, he said: “Gurdip Sohal remained as determined to present himself as an innocent abroad as he did in the trial. It was submitted that he derived no benefit from his son’s criminal activities. I reject that as wholly implausible.”

Judge Cooke found Gurdip’s benefit from his involvement was £212,305.71 – and his assets, which included three properties, amounted to £441,113.

So he ordered £194,225.53 to be confiscated from Inderjit and £212,305.71 from Gurdip under the Proceeds of Crime Act - with each of them facing a further two-and-a-half years in jail if they do not pay within three months.

On top of that, the judge ordered each of them to pay half of Sandwell Metropolitan Council’s Costs of investigating their car-clocking activities - £69,000 each.

During the original hearing, Mr Jackson said the father and son and a third man had played various parts in conspiracies to sell clocked cars between September 2011 and late 2013.

Gurdip Singh Sohal

At the time Inderjit was on bail over a previous car-clocking conspiracy with different co-defendants, for which he was jailed for three years in October 2013.

They used various premises, two of which had been leased by Singh, including units in Smethwick, Wolverhampton and Walsall.

After buying high-mileage cars at knock-down prices, the vehicles were clocked by having the milometers turned back by tens of thousands of miles.

Forged MoT certificates and service history books were then produced to make those false readings appear genuine before the cars, insured on a trade policy taken out by Gurdip, were sold to unsuspecting buyers.

Mr Jackson said one example was a lady who was concerned about the very high mileage on her BMW, and was allowed £700 for it in part-exchange for a car for which she paid Inderjit £4,000 – which had a true mileage even higher than that on her old car.

Jailing them in January last year, Judge Cooke told them:

“The case involved a significant and thoroughly-conducted investigation by [Sandwell] Trading Standards officers which unearthed a considerable operation of some sophistication.

“Inderjit Sohal, you were undoubtedly the prime mover behind that. It was fundamentally your corrupt enterprise.

“You were the one with the sophistication to manipulate documents and produce forgeries, and this is not the first time you have been sentenced for such conduct.”

The judge told Gurdip: “The prosecution cast you as your son’s business partner, albeit a subordinate one.

“It has been urged on me that I should arrive at a sentence capable of suspension. I can’t do that.”

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.