Follow us on Google News
A 56-year-old British civil servant has been found guilty of nine fraud charges after secretly holding multiple full-time government jobs and receiving more than £284,000 in taxpayer-funded salaries through fraudulent employment arrangements.
Who Is the Accused?
Kashim Chowdhury, a resident of east London, was convicted after a jury deliberated for approximately seven hours.
He was found guilty of eight counts of fraud by false representation and one count of fraud by failing to disclose information.
Prosecutors accused him of deliberately concealing his employment arrangements from government departments while collecting salaries from overlapping positions.
The judge warned that Chowdhury faced a substantial prison sentence and refused him bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and concerns about his wellbeing.
How Many Jobs Did He Hold?
Between 2020 and 2023, Chowdhury held eight overlapping full-time public-sector positions, earning approximately £350,000 in total.
During the spring of 2023, he was simultaneously employed in five government roles, creating an extraordinary workload on paper.
His employment involved departments and agencies including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Department of Health and Social Care, UK Health Security Agency, Department for Business and Trade, Food Standards Agency and Home Office.
At one stage, his employment contracts required him to work a combined 183 hours every week, exceeding the total number of hours available in seven days.
How Did He Conceal the Fraud?
Prosecutors said Chowdhury supplied inaccurate employment information on job applications and failed to disclose that he was already working for other government departments. Once appointed, he allegedly continued concealing his overlapping employment arrangements.
He was permitted to work entirely from home after informing employers that he was caring for his mother, who had dementia and was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2023. The prosecution alleged that remote working arrangements and repeated absences helped him maintain several positions without employers discovering the full extent of his commitments.
In March 2023, he was reportedly on sick leave from four organisations while continuing to work for the Home Office.
What Raised Suspicions?
Several managers reported concerns about Chowdhury’s work performance. Dan McCartney, who managed him at Defra, told the court that Chowdhury frequently kept his camera switched off during video meetings, blaming technical difficulties.
McCartney said this continued for four to five months. Despite performance concerns, Chowdhury was eventually given a permanent position and remained with the department for two years. Another manager, Aleesha Adams of the UK Health Security Agency, became suspicious during a video meeting in May 2023.
She alleged that Chowdhury appeared to have applied white makeup to make himself look unwell. Chowdhury denied wearing makeup. Adams subsequently discovered that he had logged into the meeting using a Defra email address. When questioned, he attributed the incident to a technical error.
What Did He Tell the Court?
Chowdhury told the jury that he had accepted multiple positions because he feared losing his livelihood after experiencing employment insecurity. He referred to being made redundant in 2013 and subsequently receiving a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
He maintained that stress and panic had affected his judgment when applying for additional jobs. Prosecutors rejected his explanation, arguing that his conduct demonstrated sustained and deliberate dishonesty.
What Happens Next?
The government’s National Fraud Initiative identified suspected irregularities in his employment arrangements in 2023. Defra subsequently launched an investigation, and Chowdhury was arrested and interviewed under caution in July 2023.
He was dismissed from the civil service in September that year. Following his conviction, Defra said it would pursue available avenues to recover money connected with the fraud.
The case has highlighted serious weaknesses in employment disclosure and oversight arrangements that allowed one individual to hold several taxpayer-funded positions simultaneously.
