_:n191179dea66d4e51b1bf2b823cbd0ae9xb123
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"CA: &#x201C;It is accepted she did indeed withdraw that &#xA3;10,000 and it was for herself. There are some elements that are contested, and you will decide on that for yourself whether you are sure she is guilty of fraud. You may think it is important whether there was a conversation on the telephone about whether he gifted her &#xA3;10,000. &#x201C;If there was no conversation, he has not gifted it to her. In deciding this, you will have to consider evidence from Mrs Ellis and Mrs Reynolds on Tuesday. You will have to consider their reliability as witnesses. &#x201C;You will have to consider evidence from Mrs Ellis who gave evidence against her own daughter. A daughter she accepts did an awful lot to help her troubled brother.<br> &#x201C;She trusted Paula Chamberlain to help her brother. Her evidence is quite clear. She had cause to check her brother&#x2019;s finances and saw the withdrawal. She confronted Paula, who said he had given her the money.<br> &#x201C;Mrs Ellis is quite clear there is no such conversation. It&#x2019;s Mrs Chamberlain&#x2019;s case she is lying. Her account is that not only was her mum present, but she made a comment about it.&#x201D;<br>"
<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/niece-denies-defrauding-vulnerable-uncle-13974682>