Evidence questions Cox’s protested innocence in playgroup fraud case

Cox, who was convicted of two counts of fraud – one by misrepresentation and one by abuse of position – has attempted to cast himself in a sympathetic light in recent days, hitting out at the “cherry-picking nature of information” despite the detailed judicial findings confirming his guilt.

Businessman Cox, a former director of the playgroup, avoided imprisonment despite admitting the fraudulent transfer of £12,790 from the playgroup’s accounts and the misuse of £7,838 of the charity’s funds.

The 41-year-old was accused of seven offences comprising five counts each of fraud by false representation and single counts of theft and fraud by abuse of position on various dates between October 2018 and December 2022.

He appeared in the dock of Dungannon Crown Court sitting in Newry earlier this month where a prosecution barrister advised the charges had been amended and consolidated.

Cox pleaded guilty to two charges and not guilty to the further five. The prosecution confirmed this satisfied the extent of the case and the remaining charges were left on the court books.

Tiny Tots Community Playgroup, Arney.

On the day the findings were delivered, a PR company issued a statement to The Impartial Reporter requesting that we “use it in full”, which we chose not to publish. In it, Cox expressed relief at the withdrawal of fourteen charges, asserting: “I am immensely relieved that the court has withdrawn fourteen charges, including the theft charges, and found me innocent of these accusations.” He further claimed, “From the start, I have maintained my innocence and cooperated fully with the authorities.”

However, the findings of the court do not paint such a positive picture. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) received a report from Donna Kelly, Chairperson of Tiny Tots Cross Community Playgroup, on June 29, 2023 that Cox had been misappropriating funds.

On asking Cox what this related to, he initially claimed it was for contracting work at the playgroup before stating it was for work actually carried out at his business, Yolk Folk Eggs.

He told the chairperson it was “accidentally” paid from the playgroup account and forwarded an email chain purporting to be between his employees to confirm this. Therefore, despite his public declarations of innocence, Cox admitted to dishonestly redirecting funds from the playgroup to cover his personal and business expenses.

Consequently, the charity experienced a negative impact on its cash-flow, leading to the withdrawal of funding applications, which was reflected in the judgement.

The PSNI interviewed a Yolk Folk Eggs employee suspected of sending emails which were forwarded to the chairperson. The employee denied authorship, stating she did not have access to the email account.

During an interview, Cox confessed to transferring funds from the playgroup to cover his business expenses, sometimes depositing them into his personal bank account. He explained that he did this to reduce the playgroup’s surplus in order to qualify for grant aid, which, again, was reflected in the judgement.

He admitted to using the funds for personal expenses such as home maintenance and purchasing cattle for his farm. Cox also acknowledged creating fake invoices and using old employee email accounts to fabricate correspondence, in an attempt to conceal his actions.

Initially claiming he would return the money to the playgroup’s savings, Cox later admitted that none of it had been repaid until May 2023, when he was asked to step down as treasurer.

While admitting to dishonest behaviour, Cox asserted he did not view his actions as illegal or particularly serious.

Martin Cox. File photo.

In his public statement, Cox downplayed his activities as unintentional errors. “I admitted to two charges, accepting responsibility for transactions made in error. At the time, I did not realise circulating funds within the group was wrong,” he contended.

But this portrayal is starkly at odds with evidence showing Cox’s deliberate efforts to deceive, including fabricating invoices and email exchanges to conceal his wrongdoing.

Despite his PR company stating Cox believed this “matter to be closed” and that he would not be commenting further, he took to Facebook last week to issue a public statement in response to “lazy reporting” and “cherry-picking nature of information to create a narrative for media impact and click bait”. The statement has since been deleted.

Cox’s claim of “unfair” media coverage fails to hold up against judicial scrutiny.

Judge Fiona Bagnall explained the severity of Cox’s fraudulent activities, which included creating false invoices and fabricating email correspondence to obfuscate his actions. Contrary to Cox’s claim that the funds were merely circulated within Tiny Tots accounts, the court established that these funds were used for his own advantage.

Judge Bagnall said the crime was aggravated by the creation of false invoices while seeking to wrongly place blame on employees as well as the extended period of his offending.

The chairperson’s auditing efforts uncovered numerous unauthorised payments, including a £5,000 disbursement in November 2020, another £5,000 in July 2021, and several smaller payments in 2022. These findings appear to contradict Cox’s narrative of accidental or misunderstood transactions.

The only mitigating factor that Judge Bagnall identified was that Cox had repaid all of the funds on May 26, 2023. Cox was therefore spared a custodial sentence, and instead ordered to carry out 240 hours of community service and pay a compensation order in the sum of £6170 to cover losses incurred by the charity.

In his Facebook statement last week, Cox wrote: “I extend my heartfelt thanks to my legal team, my close people and friends, colleagues, and the wider community for their unwavering support. I appreciate the community’s understanding and patience throughout this process.

“This experience has reinforced the importance of due process and the presumption of innocence.”

The Impartial Reporter asked Cox a series of questions this week, via his PR, including to answer how he could justify his actions other than a breach of trust.

“No, Martin won’t be making any further comment,” replied his spokesman.