Kilkenny husband and wife sentenced to prison for 'web of deceit' insurance claim

A Kilkenny husband and wife have been handed down prison sentences for falsely claiming their family car had been stolen and making an insurance claim that paid out €16,500.

This morning, Monday, Kilkenny Circuit Court jailed Hamid Musad, Oak Cottage, Knockhouse, Kilmacow, for two years, while his wife, Emma Musad, of the same address, was given a four-year sentence, but it has been suspended.

Following a three-week jury trial, unanimous guilty verdicts were returned on charges of theft and of making a false report, against both defendants.

A number of expert witnesses appeared in court during the course of the case, along with evidence given by investigating gardaí.

At sentencing, on Monday, Judge Cormac Quinn described how the defendants "spun a web of deceit" in their dealing with the insurance company and the gardaí.

The "high level of deception" involved was an aggravating factor, the judge said, as was the impact of the false claim on the insurance premiums of other motorists.

Sentencing Hamid Musad, the judge imposed a sentence of four years on the charge of theft, with the final two years suspended.

On the charge of making a false report, Mr Musad was sentenced to two years in prison, to run concurrently to the previous sentence. The sentence was back-dated to when Mr Musad was remanded in custody, on March 15 last.

Sentencing Emily Musad, Judge Quinn said that while Mr Musad did take actions in relation to the car, she was "the person of greater intelligence" in the matter.

On the theft charge she was sentenced to four years in prison. On the charge of making a false report she was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to run concurrently. However, the judge said that taking Mrs Musad's health difficulties into account, and that the couple's younger children would have to be taken into care if both parents were jailed, he was suspending the sentence in full.

Charges

The charges arose following the reported theft of the Musad’s Toyota Hilux. The court heard it had been insured and on December 22, 2018, the vehicle was reported stolen from his home.
A padlock on a gate had been cut and the vehicle taken.
The court heard a recording of a phone call, made by Mrs Musad, to the insurance company.

The insurance was in Mr Musad’s name and there were no named drivers on the policy.
Paschal Connolly, an insurance investigator with Axa, visited the home and took a statement from Mr Musad.

Mr Connolly was told by Mr Musad that the vehicle had been parked beside the house and they noticed it was gone at about 9am. They had heard no noise.
Mr Connolly said there were no track marks on the ground. One of two keys to the vehicle had previously been lost and the couple still had the one remaining key. In the absence of a key the Hilux would have to have been ‘lifted’, the court was told.
Mr Musad’s driving licence and the vehicle’s licensing cert were in the vehicle, Mr Connolly was also told.

On January 31, 2019, it was agreed to pay out on the insurance claim the sum of €16,500. The money was sent to Mr Musad’s bank account and taken out the same day.
A condition of the claim was that if the car was later recovered it was the property of Axa.

On February 26, 2019, the Hilux was reported recovered. €8,000 had been paid to the person who recovered it, by Mr Musad.
Mr Connolly visited the home on March 1 to investigate. He met Mr and Mrs Musad. Mr Musad said the vehicle had been returned ‘partially stripped’.

Among the items missing from the vehicle were batteries, door mirrors, the right rear door, all seats except for the driver’s seat, the instrument cluster and the central console.
Mr Connolly described the ignition/ key area as ‘not changed or forced’.
The steering column did not look to be damaged, Mr Connolly said. With no key available to the perpetrators to start the vehicle he would have expected that to be ‘ripped apart’ if it was ‘hot wired’. Mr Musad had suggested the vehicle had been ‘hot wired’.

Mr Musad accompanied Mr Connolly in his car to the place the handover of the previously stolen vehicle had taken place.

Mr Connolly said the parts that had been taken from the Hilux were ‘easy to take off’.
He was not happy and flagged to Axa that the matter needed investigation. Insurance investigator Colm Fetherstone then made a complaint to gardaí.

Mr Fetherstone said the circumstances of the jeep’s recovery were unusual. In his 30 years’ experience, he had never heard of someone paying a bounty of €8,000 to get their own vehicle back.

He was suspicious because of this and that the Musad’s said they had no key and got a copy key.
When the original theft report was made to Axa the only key for the vehicle the Musads said they had were handed over. At that time Mr Connolly said he had no reason to doubt this.
When the Hilux was returned Axa had the key they were given examined by specialists who confirmed it was the key of the vehicle.

Mr Connolly admitted to the court that the Hilux could have run without a battery if it had been jump started or used a booster pack.
In his opinion the vehicle could not have been taken without a key to unlock the immobiliser.

After the theft report, in December 2018, Garda Aidan Walsh had taken a statement from Mr and Mrs Musad who said they had only one key for the vehicle.
Following the recovery of the vehicle he conducted house to house enquiries in the area of the handover, but there were no witnesses and no CCTV.
He also made enquiries at local breakers’ yards.

Garda Antoinette Foley told the court she received a phone call from Mrs Musad on February 24, 2019, to say her husband got a call from a man who said he knew where the Hilux was.
The garda advised Mrs Musad not to meet this man and contact the gardaí if they got another call.

The court also heard from a locksmith who was called to the Musad home on March 20, 2019. They said they had lost the key to their vehicle. The locksmith ‘picked the lock and made a key’ but three attempts to reset the immobiliser failed without the original key.
The locksmith also told the court that it is not possible to hotwire a modern car. Since the mid ’90s car immobilisers only work with the correct key.

Garda Mark Keane told the court that on February 26, 2019, Mr and Mrs Musad came to a garda station to say they got a call from a man with a ‘Conor McGregor accent’ who demanded cash from them for their jeep.
A vehicle technician and insurance assessor was asked to inspect the vehicle at the Musad’s home, which he did on March 6, 2019.

He was told there was no key available for the vehicle. He looked for signs of forced entry. He found all door handles intact and the rubber around the windows was not manipulated. There was no evidence of manipulation of the ignition barrel and the immobiliser ring around the barrel was intact.
He said the vehicle would not start without the correct key coded to the vehicle’s immobiliser.

The technician noted multiple components had been removed from the vehicle, including the registration plate, air box, rear lamps, rear alloy wheels, the tow bar, heat control, rear view mirror, two gear knobs and two sun visors.
The technician returned to inspect the vehicle with gardaí, following its removal to Kilkenny. All parts that had been put on the vehicle were identical with a Toyota Hilux. It was his opinion that the rear tailgate was identical to what would have been on the vehicle originally.

Retired Sergeant Pat Baldwin, a PSV inspector, also gave evidence of inspecting the vehicle. He confirmed locks and windows had not been interfered with.

Jonathan Ashworth, a key specialist, gave evidence that on this vehicle the central locking system can not be over-ridden by a relay system, or ‘cloning’ the central locking signal from the key fob, to steal it.
He said the key has to be placed in the ignition and if the transponder is not correct the car will not start.
He was given the two keys seized and reported they were both the original master keys of this Hilux.

Toyota master mechanic Stephen McConnell said he conducted a diagnostic check in relation to this vehicle. There were only ever two master keys for it, he said.

Garda William Saunderson, from the stolen vehicle investigation unit, said security on this model of vehicle is quite good and it is not susceptible to a ‘relay attack’.
A new key would take two to three days to make and there would be a record of it. An authorised dealer would have to be used.
There are less theft reports for this model than other brands of vehicle, he said, and in most cases a key was used.

Garda John Shortall said he applied for a search warrant for the home of the Musads on May 8, 2019. During the search they handed over the log book and importation cert for the Hilux.
The vehicle was not at the house. They told the garda it was at a garage in Waterford undergoing repairs.

A search warrant was obtained for the garage and the vehicle was seized, then taken to Kilkenny for examination.
A second key for the vehicle was found with it, at the mechanic’s garage.
A third search warrant was obtained for the bank records of Mr and Mrs Musad.
Evidence was obtained from the bank by gardaí.

Evidence was also given by the managing director of a conservatory installation company who said he conducted a survey of the Musad’s home in November 2018. They later met and agreed a price of €18,000 and a deposit of €8,000 was paid on November 15, 2018.

Work was completed on the conservatory in December. On January 29, 2019, the man met the Musads who told him the €10,000 balance had been in the glove compartment of their jeep when it was stolen. They gave him €100 and said they would sort him out when the insurance came. That was the last payment he ever received.
The court was told no money was repaid to the insurance company.

Garda John Shortall gave evidence of arresting and interviewing, separately, Mr and Mrs Musad, in November 2019.
Following several hours of deliberation, over two days, the jury of seven men and five women returned a unanimous guilty verdict on all charges.

Having delivered guilty verdicts in the charges against Hamid Musad they returned to deliberations for another hour before returning guilty verdicts in the charges against Emily Musad.

Judgement

On Monday morning, Judge Quinn returned to Kilkenny Circuit Court for sentencing in the case.

Barrister for Mrs Musad, Phil Sheehan, said his client is 46 and originally from Dunmore East. She resides in Kilmacow where she and her husband run a bird sanctuary. They have five children from age 12 to age 25.

He said Mrs Musad had been heavily medicated for a significant period of time, before this incident and since, and said this clouded her thinking during the commission of the offences. Her life since conviction has been difficult. 

A Probation Report placed Mrs Musad at low risk of reoffending. She was concerned about the care of her young children if she as incarcerated, the court heard.

Barrister Sarah Jane Comerford, for Hamid Musad, said her client is 51 and had now been remanded in custody for more than four and aa half months. Prior to that he was living at home and working at his bird sanctuary and home schooling his children.

Mr Musad respected the jury had found him guilty and he is eager to repay any money outstanding, not just for the Hilux but also other matters raised during the trial, Ms Comerford said.

He is at low risk of reoffending, according to a Probation Report.

Mr Musad came to Ireland more than 25 years ago, established a home here and has a good work ethic, the barrister said. Character references were handed in to court. The tenor of the letter was that Mr Musad is someone who is very generous with his time, a loyal husband and good family man.

Mr Musad takes one of his grandchildren for animal therapy and it is a huge upset for the child that he is away from home. He is an 'enhanced prisoner' on remand and has attended several courses while in prison. He has had time to reflect on the disruption caused to his family.

Handing down his judgement, Judge Quinn said he was treating both defendants on the same level.

Emily Musad's four year sentence was suspended, for four years, on condition she enter a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Hamid Musad's four year sentence had the final two years suspended for two years, on condition he keep the peace and be of good behaviour on his release, and while he is in prison.