Nottingham romance fraudster who posed as footballer jailed
A man who posed as a professional footballer to con a woman out of more than £16,000 in a "cynical" romance fraud has been jailed.Nottinghamshire Police said Hesaam Ghori, 27, span "a web of lies" to befriend and exploit his victim with romantic promises over a 14-month period.Detectives said the 27-year-old's lies included that he was a player for Burton Albion and that he and his sister had cancer and needed money to pay for private treatment.Ghori, from Nottingham, was jailed for two years and four months at Nottingham Crown Court on Monday after admitting four counts of fraud by false representation.
Police said Ghori initially contacted his victim, from Nottingham, via Instagram in 2021 after seeing her profile on a dating website.The pair exchanged messages in which he claimed to have a sponsorship deal with a clothing brand through his fictitious football career.Police said when they finally met in person, Ghori told the woman he loved her and wanted to marry her.
'Emotional devastation'
Detectives said Ghori then started to ask the woman for money for a range of reasons - each time promising to pay her back before making excuses not to.Police said Ghori's deceptions were exposed when the woman came across a post on TikTok that showed him at a wedding on the same day he said he would be in hospital undergoing cancer treatment.She contacted police, who arrested Ghori in April 2024, by which time she had given him £16,203.71.An investigation found he had also conned three other victims in Leeds, Bradford, and Reading, who he had duped out of £2,320, £350 and £521, respectively.Police said each of the other victims suffered a considerable emotional impact from Ghori's actionsThe Nottingham victim said she had suffered a "heartless" deception and "emotional devastation".
In a statement read in court, she said: "Over several months we communicated daily, sharing stories, dreams, and plans for the future. "I began to trust him deeply, and he made me believe we were building a real relationship and at some point, we'd get married and start a family together."As the relationship developed, Hesaam began to plead for significant amounts of money, telling me he needed funds for medical emergencies, i.e his sister having cancer, himself having cancer. "Hesaam told me he needed money for flights to visit family abroad for family emergencies, house burdens, and money to pay for our wedding."On each occasion Hesaam promised he'd pay me back in full. "I felt compelled to assist Hesaam as I loved him. I transferred money repeatedly, believing it would alleviate his difficulties and bring us closer."
'Utterly betrayed'
She added: "When Hesaam told me he and his little sister were battling cancer, I felt an overwhelming sense of compassion and responsibility to support them. "I poured my heart into being there for them emotionally and financially, believing that I was helping someone I loved through a life-threatening ordeal."The most painful part of it all is now knowing that Hesaam exploited my kindness and manipulated me to make financial gains for himself. "Every word he said, every message he sent, every promise he made and every tearful plea he made was calculated to manipulate me. "Learning that this was a complete fabrication has left me feeling utterly betrayed and devastated."The court heard Ghori had exploited his victims' "kindness and generosity" to fund a lifestyle that served his own pleasure, including plane tickets to Pakistan, a moderately expensive car and football tickets to Liverpool games.
Restraining orders imposed
Det Con Nabeel Dad said: "Ghori went to great lengths to build rapport with his victims and gain their trust, before fabricating stories to exploit them out of vast sums."He demonstrated a cynical disregard for his victims, grooming them with romantic promises before manipulating them for his own selfish financial gain."Ghori was also given a five-year restraining order preventing him from contacting his victims.Police said a Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) hearing would be held at a future date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Essex Boys' triple killer Michael Steele released from prison
A triple killer convicted of the ' Essex Boys' gangland murders has been released from prison, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed. Michael Steele was jailed for life in 1998 for the killings of Tony Tucker, Pat Tate and Craig Rolfe, which he denied, alongside co-defendant Jack Whomes. The three men were found shot dead in a Range Rover in Rettendon, near Chelmsford, Essex, in 1995. A Parole Board panel decided in February to free Steele, now in his 80s, because his imprisonment was 'no longer necessary for the protection of the public' but Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood challenged the decision and asked for his case to be reviewed again on the grounds the decision was legally irrational. Steele was released from prison in May, the MoJ confirmed. A spokesperson for the government department said: 'Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Craig Rolfe, Tony Tucker and Pat Tate. 'This decision was made by the independent Parole Board after a thorough risk assessment. 'Michael Steele will be on licence for the rest of his life, with strict conditions and intensive probation supervision. He faces an immediate return to prison if he breaks the rules.' The killings took place after a row over a drug deal, prosecutors said, and the case later inspired the 2000 film Essex Boys, starring Sean Bean. The decision in February to release Steele came in the second review by the Parole Board following the end of his initial minimum term of 23 years' imprisonment. He had not been assessed as suitable for formal risk-reduction interventions while in prison, 'partly through lack of need and partly because he had maintained his innocence of involvement in the murders', the Parole Board's summary said. It added that risk factors for Steele at the time of his offending included his 'criminal lifestyle, involvement with drugs and association with the wrong people'. But the Parole Board also found that Steele's behaviour in prison had shown 'marked improvement' and none of the witnesses considered risks would be imminent if he was released into the community. Strict licence conditions were set out for Steele, including to live at a designated address, be of good behaviour, provide financial and business details, give up his passport, and be subject to electronic tagging and a specified curfew. There were additional restrictions relating to the use of electronic technology, contact with the media or other publications, and not to own a boat, plane or firearm. The Parole Board decided Whomes, then aged 59, could be released in 2021.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Families of Chinook crash victims to launch legal action against MoD
The families of those killed in a Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 have said they are beginning legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for not ordering a public inquiry. They want a High Court judge to be able to review information which they say was not included in previous investigations, and which they believe will shed new light on the airworthiness of the helicopter. RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2, 1994. All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members. The families of the victims, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations. In a letter to the Government 31 years after the crash, the group said: 'The investigations conducted to date, whether considered individually or in combination, have failed to discharge the investigative duty.' They have also called for the release of documents that were sealed at the time of the crash for 100 years, something revealed in a BBC documentary last year. Solicitor Mark Stephens, who is representing the families, said: 'In this case, the families of those who were killed have seen more than enough evidence to convince them, and us, that there was a failure by the MoD to apply appropriate safeguards in order to protect the passengers and crew. 'In fact, they were put on board an aircraft that was known to be positively dangerous and should never have taken off. 'That is why we are seeking a judicial review into the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry – which the families have sought for more than a year.' Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK Government 17 years later, following a campaign by the families. A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash. Esme Sparks, who was seven years old when her father Major Gary Sparks was killed in the crash, said: 'We don't want to have to take legal action against the Government and MoD but we do want and need answers surrounding the circumstance of this crash. 'We want to know who or what is being protected? Who made the decision to let this helicopter take off? What is being hidden? In our view, a public inquiry is key.' Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father, Lt Col John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'It's clear to me that a complete lack of duty of care was given to those passengers because they got on a Chinook that wasn't fit for flight. 'And really, the government need to show their duty of candour and really be open and transparent about what's in those documents and give us the opportunity to really understand anything that's in them that could give us more answers about what happened.' The MoD said that records held in The National Archives contain personal information and early release of those documents would breach their data protection rights. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.'
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge set to pass verdict after trial of man who burned Koran
A judge is set to pass verdict after the trial of a man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard last week. Coskun denies a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. He also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', contrary to section five of the Public Order Act 1986. The charges are alternative to each other, meaning if hostility towards religion is not proven, Coskun could still be found guilty of the simple offence of disorderly behaviour. His lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, argued last week that the prosecution is effectively trying to revive blasphemy laws, which were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Blasphemy remains an offence in Northern Ireland but is rarely enforced. Prosecutor Philip McGhee said the case is about disorderly conduct, not the act of burning the Koran itself, adding that the prosecution of Coskun does not represent a restriction on criticising religion. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard. In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'. The man approached him allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, the court heard. The footage appeared to show Coskun back away and use the burning Koran to deflect the attacker, who is alleged to have slashed out at him again. The man chased Coskun, and the defendant stumbled forward and fell to the ground, dropping the Koran, the footage showed. Coskun was spat at and kicked by the man, the court heard. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.' Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', prosecutors said. The defendant, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard. His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS). District Judge John McGarva will pass verdict at the same court on Monday. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, said before the trial: 'A successful prosecution in this case could represent the effective criminalisation of damaging a Koran in public, edging us dangerously close to a prohibition on blasphemy. 'The case also highlights the alarming use of public order laws to curtail our collective right to protest and free speech based on the subjective reactions of others. 'Establishing a right not to be offended threatens the very foundation of free expression.' A spokesperson for Humanists UK previously said that a successful prosecution would 'effectively resurrect the crime of blasphemy in England and Wales – 17 years after its abolition'. They added: 'This reintroduction of blasphemy by the back door would have profound consequences, not only for free expression in the UK but for the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of so-called 'apostates' in the UK and their right to freedom of thought and conscience.'
