Identity thief stole from five islanders
FIVE islanders were shocked to discover Shaunney Avery had set up online accounts in their names without their knowledge, and purchased more than £8,000 of goods, including mobile phones and Playstations.
Avery had gathered personal information using the phone book and Facebook to set up credit lines with a website to purchase the goods.
Judge Graeme McKerrell said Avery had invaded the victims’ privacy, as he sentenced her to four months in prison for her crimes.
‘Identity theft is an increasingly serious problem and a serious punishment has to follow,’ he said.
The 24-year-old, of Les Adams, Route des Adams, St Peter’s, had admitted 10 counts of making false representations to make gain to herself or loss to the companies.
The Magistrate’s Court heard how Avery had used the victims’ names, addresses and dates of birth to set up the credit lines with Shop Direct Ltd – which includes Very and Littlewoods – and then created fake email and phone numbers to go with them. She would then set up a Guernsey Post Ebox account, so she could pick up parcels from the Smith Street post office.
The first victim was a high school teacher who Avery had worked with and had wanted to inconvenience him after their friendship went sour.
Over a period of nine days in July 2017 she made three orders in his name, which included bedding, a Paw Patrol cushion, a pair of women’s trousers and a laptop. Some of the items were never collected from the post office, but the laptop was delivered to the victim by mistake, who was confused and sent it back. Littlewoods also sent him a letter thanking him for opening account, which he had not.
The second victim was the wife of a man who played football with Avery’s husband. She already had a Littlewoods account, so when Avery set up the fake account, it was merged with the real one. With this account Avery purchased children’s and women’s clothing at the start of August 2017.
The third victim knew Avery through her partner’s parents. At the end of August 2017 Avery created an account and ordered children’s items and and two Playstation 4s worth £574.
The fourth victim was actually travelling in Asia when Avery set up the account. She bought 24 items in the woman’s name, including children’s toys, clothing and food, worth £597.
As Avery offended, the value of her orders increased. The final victim saw three orders made in her name – for £744, £3,868 and £1,593 – for a total of 110 items. They included two iPhone 8 mobile phones, two laptops and an Xbox One. The victim used to have a Littlewoods account, but had never had a Very account, so was surprised to receive a letter from Very saying her account was in arrears. She contacted them and found someone had used up all her credit.
CCTV showed the defendant collecting parcels from Smith Street, although not all the parcels were collected. A search of Avery’s home turned up a number of the purchased items.
In police interview she initially tried to place the blame on a innocent man, saying he had lent her money and then told her to set up the online accounts to pay him back. The man was arrested, but Avery had lied and he had no involvement in the crimes.
Avery had no previous matters on her record.
One of the victims said she originally thought the crime had to be by someone in the UK and was shocked to find out it was Avery.
‘It was a violation of my privacy,’ she wrote and has since seen her credit rating drop due to the crimes.
Another victim said she wanted an apology from Avery.
‘It really upset me and I can’t believe she did what she did,’ she wrote.
Defence advocate Sarah Morgan said her client had been motivated by trying to cause inconvenience to the first victim, rather than financial gain.
She said Avery had realised with the last few big purchases that ‘the behaviour spiralled out of control’ and she was going to stop.
Judge Graeme McKerrell said it was a planned and sophisticated crime, that required forethought.
‘It seems at first it was not for personal gain, but you did gain from it,’ he said.
‘This was not a one-off act, but offences that spanned a number of months, a number of transactions and a number of victims.’
He noted that Avery had ‘lied her way through police interviews’ and that implicating an innocent man was a significant aggravating factor to the case.
He noted that even if the information Avery used was in the public domain, she had not right to steal it and use it for own gain.
