A couple, described as “controlling”, exploited their own family members, draining them of over £100,000 and leaving them with a mere 28 pence. Gary Mansell and his wife Diane deceived his elderly parents over a period of three and a half years while holding power of attorney, using the embezzled funds on high-end items and vacations abroad.
The pair, who harbored ambitions of amassing wealth, were convicted of fraud and money laundering at Liverpool Crown Court in November 2023. Subsequently, they received a six-year prison sentence from Judge David Swinnerton, who denounced their conduct as a “despicable exhibition of avarice and conceit.”
Residing in the Woolton district of Liverpool, the husband and wife, aged 61 and 58 at the time of their incarceration, are set to challenge their conviction and sentence length at the Court of Appeal. To succeed in overturning their convictions, the Mansells’ legal representatives must prove that the convictions were flawed due to a legal error or the emergence of new evidence.
During the trial at Liverpool Crown Court, it emerged that Mansell’s parents, Fred and Enid, had relocated from their long-time residence in October 2017 following Fred’s significant fall and Enid’s struggle with dementia. The elderly couple had lived in the house for more than five decades, owned two vehicles, and maintained a substantial bank balance from their pensions.
Upon inviting the elderly duo into their home and being granted power of attorney, Gary and Diane sold the family home below its market value and used the proceeds to convert their garage into a living area. They isolated the elderly pair, exerted control over them, restricted their diet to ready-made meals, and manipulated social workers while indulging in luxury trips and personal expenditures.
The couple made numerous withdrawals from their parents’ bank account, with the total amount embezzled estimated at over £218,000. However, the prosecution settled on £117,000 as the sum defrauded, factoring in the costs of the garage conversion and living expenditures.
Despite leading a luxurious lifestyle financed by the ill-gotten gains, Diane expressed disdain for caring for her relatives and accused them of mistreatment. Enid passed away prior to her son facing legal repercussions, while Fred expressed a desire to not continue living.
Diane’s solicitor portrayed her as the family’s unifying force, with Gary complementing her role, and expressed hope for her to reconcile with her family during her imprisonment. Concerns were raised about Gary’s health issues potentially worsening in custody.
Judge Swinnerton rebuked the couple during sentencing, highlighting the destructive impact of their avarice and vanity on their family, admonishing them to feel ashamed of their actions.