The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Reilly’s appeal against a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence for stealing €832,142 from 18 clients while he worked as a tied agent with Canada Life.
Reilly pleaded guilty to 80 counts of theft. Dublin Circuit Criminal Court imposed one sentence of four years and six months on the first count, taking the other 79 counts into consideration. The sentence was to run from 29 June 2015.
The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 19 February 2016, said the thefts took place between 2002 and 2011. The court heard that Reilly persuaded clients to withdraw money from savings or investment policies and return it to him for reinvestment in Canada Life/EBS funds. No such investments were made, and false documents were produced to reassure clients. The largest theft from one client exceeded €400,000.
The judgment recorded that Reilly admitted taking the money to fund compulsive gambling. After his employment ended in November 2011 following a cash-handling breach, he contacted Canada Life and disclosed that he had defrauded clients. Before any Garda complaint was made, he also went to Drogheda Garda Station and gave a voluntary statement, along with files detailing the affected clients and the thefts.
Canada Life reimbursed all 18 clients and paid additional compensation. The judgment said the clients had been out of pocket for a considerable time, causing hardship in some cases and stress and worry in all. Canada Life’s total loss was €1,182,574.
The appeal argued that the sentencing judge had given too little weight to Reilly’s cooperation, guilty pleas, personal circumstances, remorse and steps towards rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal noted that the judge had not stated a starting sentence or specified the discount for mitigation, contrary to sentencing best practice. It said that omission made the appeal difficult to analyse.
However, the court considered the offending a very serious case of theft. It inferred that the sentencing judge had used a starting point of nine or possibly ten years and allowed a discount of at least 50 per cent for mitigation. The court held that the final sentence was within the judge’s reasonable margin of appreciation and disclosed no error of principle. It dismissed the appeal.