Puddytats - your case has always bugged me because it just doesn't seem to make sense.
Though let me say straight away that I have enormous sympathy for you and your children with the propsect of your DH going to prison .... never mind all the stress you've described up until this point. It must be unimaginally horrific.
But, as you've told us, large sums have gone missing from your husbnad's firm (if I remember correctly). Money that he would have had access to in the course of his job. If the prosecution is based on the fact that he somehow stole this money, there must be a trail ..... years before computers I would have thought it might be easier for money to disppear but not now.
The money must have left the firm in the 1st place. Now I am not saying this is what happened here (how could I ?) but I have read about cases where cheques have, for example, been written to erroneous causes (which, on the face of it, would appear to fit in with a company's business) where false accounts have been set up etc. But there would again be a trail for this. And these days, it's impossible to set up new accounts without ID - though I concede of course that false ID could be used. Nonetheless, in that scenario, there would still be a trail going into Mr xxxx's account, at which point surely handwriting experts would be called in to compare signatures, dates would be questionned & compared to your husband's known movements/alibis.
Alternatively, you read of cases where employees have been siphonning off money for years - undetected - because their boss trusted them implicity, didn't "bother" with the financial side of things and accepted the "truth" of the figures placed before them, even, in some cases, accepting a word of mouth valuation of their business. Sounds crazy, but some people really are that trusting. However, in those sorts of cases, when the theft has eventually come to light it's usually obvious where the money's been and gone. Those types of thief trust in the fact they will never be found out due to their bosses lack of financial noddle, don't attempt to defraud (further than the original theft and transfer) say, by setting up false accounts, and are well and truly caught red handed by a lifestyle which is totally at odds with the £15k a year they earn.
Now, I remember you saying when this originally came up that you swore neither of you had seen the money in question. Which then makes you think of colleagues forging your husband's signature on authorisations ....... but yet again, in that scenario you then go back to the whole trail issue. And were false signatures/authorisations an issue, then surely DH's solicitor advises handwriting experts ?
I just can't get my head round this at all. The only way I, as an ordinary member of the public can imagine large sums of money disappearing is in a cash run business (an unlikely way to run your business) where obviously there'd be no trail, no proof ...... and I take it that isn't the case here ?
I can obviously appreciate that you are feeling bewildered and shattered by all this and you have no obligation to disclose details on here. But I, and probably lots of others, do wonder what exactly it is that he's been charged with ? It all just sounds so crazy - and you can't help but wonder if there's maybe some bank-level fraud happening here ?
But - but - but ...... even then, I keep coming back to trailing this money. It must follow that on a particular date, a sum of £xxx was transferred or withdrawn in person. If so, who initiated the transaction ? Where was it transferred to ? ..... okay, it was transferred to such and such account. What are the subsequent transactions on that account ? Who does that account belong to ?
Are the powers that be saying they have "proof" your DH took this money, then put it into £xxx account of his ? You said you have never seen this money so how can that be ?
Sorry ..... I know I've gone on a bit. I really don't mean to harrangue you. My questions are more from a perspective of disbelief that someone can be charged with something like this where a trail would exist, and where, if he was the victim of an elaborate fraud involving identity theft, it would (to my amateur sleuthing mind anyway) be relatively easy to prove that he had not phoned x bank at x time (voice analysis if call recorded), had not signed slip on x date (alibis ?) etc.
I can't imagine that anyone would come on here and make such a story up and therefore do believe you when you've said before that you are totally bewildered by it all. I just don't see on what basis this prosecution can be going ahead based on what you've told us.
What does DH's solicitor say ?