Edward Putman, a convicted rapist, was jailed for nine years in October 2019 for stealing £2.5 million from the National Lottery with the help of Camelot insider Giles Knibbs. Putman’s release under the End of Custody Supervised Licence scheme, designed to free up prison spaces, has raised questions as he failed to pay back the stolen cash. Despite attempting to repay only £94,000 of his ill-gotten gains, Putman was released early, sparking outrage over the leniency of the system. The use of the ECSL also highlighted concerns over the pressure on packed prisons, with the scheme allowing for criminals to be released before the end of their sentences.
The early release of Edward Putman, who also has a 1991 rape conviction, was met with criticism due to his failure to comply with the Proceeds of Crime order. The £939,000 that he was required to pay back was not fully settled, leading to financial investigators seizing his assets and putting his home up for auction to recover the funds. Putman’s case revealed the flaws in the justice system and the prioritization of easing prison congestion over ensuring that offenders like Putman fulfill their legal obligations. The ECSL, which allows for early release under certain conditions, has been the subject of scrutiny for its potential to release high-risk offenders prematurely.
The lottery fraud scheme orchestrated by Putman, along with Camelot fraud worker Giles Knibbs, involved a fake ticket that Putman used to claim a £2.5 million jackpot win. Knibbs, who was deceived out of his share of the money, took his own life after the scam was uncovered. Putman’s trial exposed the elaborate nature of the fraud, and the subsequent legal proceedings aimed to recover the stolen amount. Despite the threat of additional prison time for non-compliance with the confiscation order, Putman’s early release has sparked debates about the adequacy of the justice system in addressing financial crimes.
The arson attack on Putman’s mansion, which was eventually auctioned off for £1.2 million, added further twists to the saga. An investigation into the suspected arson attack, which targeted the derelict property in Kings Langley, Herts., yielded no arrests or conclusive leads. The circumstances surrounding the fire and the disposal of the mansion underscored the complex legal and financial aftermath of Putman’s criminal activities. The case raised questions about the efficacy of law enforcement in addressing the wider implications of white-collar crimes such as lottery fraud.
The Ministry of Justice defended Putman’s early release under the ECSL, pointing to the need to alleviate prison overcrowding and ensure the safety of lower-level offenders who were close to their automatic release date. The government’s commitment to expanding prison capacity was cited as part of the broader strategy to maintain public safety and hold dangerous offenders accountable. The stringent monitoring and conditions placed on released offenders like Putman sought to strike a balance between rehabilitation and punishment. The public outcry over Putman’s case highlighted the complex interplay between criminal justice, prison reform, and public perception of offenders’ rights.
The combination of Putman’s criminal past, his involvement in high-profile financial crimes, and his controversial early release under a government scheme brought to the fore the challenges and controversies within the UK’s criminal justice system. The case raised questions about the adequacy of penalties for white-collar crimes, the impact of overcrowded prisons on the handling of offenders, and the need for effective measures to ensure compliance with legal requirements. Putman’s story serves as a reminder of the intricacies and shortcomings of the justice system in addressing complex cases involving financial fraud, violent crimes, and early release programs.
