An agency social worker who held three full-time jobs with different local authorities has been ordered to repay the money obtained by fraud or face a further court hearing.

Beatrice Eduah pleaded guilty to fraud by abuse of position between June and November 2023, after misleading Suffolk County Council, Peterborough City Council and another local authority by ‘working’ for all three simultaneously, without any of them being aware of her additional employment.

Eduah’s deception only came to light in November 2023, when the recruitment company that had placed her at Suffolk County Council realised she had submitted timesheets for both them and Peterborough City Council for the same hours.

Upon learning this, Suffolk County Council’s Counter Fraud Service launched an investigation and found that during Eduah’s employment at the Council, she had also worked full time for one other authority and had been employed full time by both for a period of three weeks.

When Eduah applied for the role in the adult social care team at Suffolk County Council, she omitted from her CV the fact that she was already employed by two other authorities. In a bid to maintain her deception, she requested unpaid leave on five occasions, once for a fabricated death in the family, when in fact she was working for a different local authority.

At her trial in August, sentencing was deferred until February 2026, but the judge ordered Eduah to use the time between now and then to save the £17,668.53 she must repay to Suffolk County Council.

Commenting on the case, Roger Isaacs, Forensic Partner at Milsted Langdon said: “It is often surprising how brazen fraudsters can be and this case is a particularly staggering example of someone who presumably believed she could hold down three full time jobs at the same time without being caught.

“The case highlights the additional risks that employers face as a result of hybrid or remote working. 

“In this case, it is doubtful that there would even have been a need for any forensic accountancy evidence because the facts and figures would have been likely to have been self-evident once the fraud had been uncovered.

However in more complex cases, a forensic investigation can often be a necessary step in demonstrating wrong doing or, conversely, proving a defendant’s innocence.”

Sources: BBC News