Portsmouth couple found guilty of eBay perfume scam

The fire near Kentidge Way, Waterlooville, yesterday. Picture: Craig Handy

Suspected arson incident in Waterlooville causes £50,000 of damage

0
Have your say

A COUPLE have been convicted of making money from their ‘Aladdin’s Cave’ flat filled with stolen luxury perfumes and make-up they sold on eBay.

About £350,000 went through the bank accounts of Dariusz Suski, 31, and Joanna Lazarska, 33, in just over a year.

When police raided their home in St Ronan’s Road, Southsea, they found more than 11,000 stolen Estee Lauder items, plus Clarins cosmetics and perfumes, worth £465,000.

Now Lazarska and Suski have each been found guilty of conspiracy to handle stolen goods and of conspiring to transfer criminal property between November 2011 and April 2013 following a trial.

The pair were each cleared of a further charge of conspiring to transfer criminal property at Portsmouth Crown Court.

Meanwhile Andrew Hamlett, 32, of Havelock Road Warsash, who had been accused of selling stolen goods to the couple, has been found not guilty of conspiracy to transfer criminal property.

A fourth defendant, Ramszesz Harangozo, 35, of Ashville Road, London, has been convicted of transferring criminal property and his girlfriend Judit Gevai, 29, of Ashville Road, London, has been cleared of the same charge.

The court heard police acted after being alerted by bank officials who noticed a large amount of money flowing through Suski and Lazarska’s bank account which was ‘inconsistent with their apparent lifestyle’.

Inquiries revealed Suski was using two eBay accounts. One, called Professor1313, was used to sell cosmetics, mainly Estee Lauder.

Enquiries were carried out and police later raided Suski and Lazarska’s Southsea home where they found thousands of stolen goods.

Suski, Lazarska and Harangozo are due to be sentenced in January.

Speaking after the trial, Andrew Hamlett told of his relief at being cleared. He said: ‘It’s been a really hard nine weeks, even though the issues behind my case were weak – from a prosecution perspective, the judge allowed the trial to continue.

‘Knowing that she was going to advise the jury that a not guilty plea on the basis of “no case to answer” was the only decision for them to make was nerve-wracking, I am just glad it’s all over and I can continue with my life.’