Suspended sentence for bank IT worker who broke into his boss's webcam because he didn't get a payrise An Essex IT worker has walked free from court after screwing with the British Business Bank's systems in revenge for not getting a payrise. Service desk analyst Ashley Crispin, of Wickford Place, Basildon, quit his job at the state-owned economic development bank established by UK.gov, after growing frustrated that he hadn't …
It will be 3 years before his conviction is spent, he won't be able to get a job in IT in the interim period and would then need to explain to a future employer why he was out of IT for 3 years that would be a red flag for me as a recruiter. I would want a sensible explanation if the gap.
Even if his skills are bang up to date now they will be less relevant in 3 years, especially if he isn't using them for that time.
I be;ioved that an enhance CRB check would also uncover the spent conviction and he will never pass a government security check now.
In reality he has just destroyed his career.
"I got made redundant because... <waves vaguely>..., well, you remember 2020, then I couldn't get another job. So I started volunteering at [worthy cause], and found it really fulfilling. I tried to learn some [IT-relevant skill] in my spare time, and eventually, after a few years, decided I needed to concentrate back on a career, due to [plausible life-event]. Of course, I don't have immediate previous experience, but I'm keen to work, and would be grateful for the opportunity with you."
His future won't be easy, but it's possible.
It's possible, I agree, but bullshitting about his past can only work for so long before biting him in the backside. The truth is out there for anyone curious enough to look.
If he wants to lie his way back into IT then he'd be best off as a jobbing contractor. Lord knows, we've all known a few that were downright dishonest about their technical abilities. They get found out, they just move on.
I suspect he'd need to be honest about his past for his career to have any real longevity. And even then his job applications will still only make the reject pile in the majority of cases.
People can change and can learn from their mistakes, and there will even be employers who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially given his (relative) youth, but he's going have to graft hard and long before he wins back any significant trust, if ever.
"It's possible, I agree, but bullshitting about his past can only work for so long before biting him in the backside. The truth is out there for anyone curious enough to look."
If a conviction is "spent", not only does the person not have to declare it, but if an employer subsequently becomes aware of it, they are not allowed to use it against the person. That's the whole point of of the system of "spent" convictions. It allows you "start fresh", eventually. As has also been mentioned, even a "spent" conviction could still show up in an enhanced criminal records check, but it should only show if the conviction is relevant to the job being applied for and the employer under most circumstances doesn't get to see what the offence was, only if the check results in the applicant being disqualified from a particular job type.
If a conviction is "spent", not only does the person not have to declare it, but if an employer subsequently becomes aware of it, they are not allowed to use it against the person. That's the whole point of of the system of "spent" convictions.
An excellent example of the battle between theory and reality. Even if the record of the conviction is rendered inaccessible, the public reporting on his efforts is harder to erase..
"An excellent example of the battle between theory and reality. Even if the record of the conviction is rendered inaccessible, the public reporting on his efforts is harder to erase.."
Convictions are only spent after a number years though. Unless it's a very high profile case, or a case that relates to you in some way, such as by locality etc, odds are few people will remember it years later. I suppose it depends on the job, the applicant, the result of any legally required background check (costs time and money, few employers IME will spend money they don't have to) as to whether someone will go to the extra trouble of hunting down possible public records/reporting/media and trying to link them to the person applying for the job.
"
It's possible, I agree, but bullshitting about his past can only work for so long before biting him in the backside. The truth is out there for anyone curious enough to look.
"
If he has changed his name and moved to a different town/city, it's not that easy to find out about his past even with the mighty power of Google. Especially these days when you can easily invent a perfectly plausible employment history that has all your previous employment in companies that are no longer in business.
Numpty is screwed even if he bullshits about past, one google search for a not very common name (Ashley Crispin) will bring up various news articles like this one featuring his name.
Theres a reason why most places ive worked with a helldesk that there machines are VDI thin clients and severly restricted in what they can do (gather info to give to people who know what they are doing and thats about it)...
>It will be 3 years before his conviction is spent, he won't be able to get a job in IT in the interim period and would then need to explain to a future employer why he was out of IT for 3 years that would be a red flag for me as a recruiter.
Easily hidden given he was just 23 and a "Service desk analyst":
Startup a computer support business, only needs a few friends to be clients, spend the time getting a few relevant qualifications (many online courses are currently discounted/free). Alternatively go to college and get an IT qualification.
In 3 years time there will be no career gap, just some more relevant experience...
>>I be;ioved that an enhance CRB check would also uncover the spent conviction
Correct
>>and he will never pass a government security check now.
Incorrect. He would be questioned about the circumstances and exactly what happened. If he attempted to hide anything in that conversation he wouldn't pass a security check.
A/C well becasue...
He would be questioned about the circumstances and exactly what happened
Perhaps. I recently had to do a background check (just the basic one although I have had SC in the past and will probably have to get it again) and you need to be able to account for the last 5 (10 for SC) years of employment (or lack thereof) and home address(es).
If you claim to have worked for a company that is now out of business, you will be asked for corroborating evidence (payslips, offer letter, resignation letter and so forth). One company I worked for was simply not contactable (they were still in business but no-one in the offices due to lockdown) and I had to provide said evidence.
Fortunately, I had kept some of the paper evidence and some electronic records that survived the last move a couple of years ago.
On the SC front, I had a (long) spent conviction from the mid 70s (young and foolish) that I declared and nothing was said about it (I am sure they looked for it though).
For those clearances, I agree that trying to hide something will most definitely be met with raised eyebrows and probable rejection.
Any gap that seems odd on a CV needs a good explanation. I had to explain a such a gap but my explanation was I had a couple of bridge positions while I was updating my skills. (I was moving out of an unrelated area to IT). However, explaining a gap caused by a conviction is a wee bit more difficult particularly when directly relates to the position you are applying for.
"In reality he has just destroyed his career" unless he goes into politics.
In a few years' time he can do that without the risk of another fraud prosecution for most jobs.
Provided he is successful with a "right to forget" request to Google - any sane HR staff will always have a quick peek at public data to see if any potential contractor or employee exposes the company to risk or controversy. I know I would.
Here in the states, he would have to answer truthfully on his application. If he lies, he's toast.
In FinTech, he'd have to pass a background check, drug screening, and in some areas get finger printed. So he'd be found out ASAP.
Sucks to be him.
Quite correct. The only sentences that are virtually the same as a "not guilty" verdict are absolute and conditional discharges. If either of those sentences are imposed, it is not regarded as a conviction for the purpose of any future legal proceedings. Judges will sometimes impose such sentences if they believe that although the defendent is technically guilty of the offence (so cannot be found "not guilty"), the prosecution was unjustified in the circumstances ... e.g. a motorist who safely went through a red light in order to clear the way for an ambulance on an emergency call.
'Forfeit all digital devices' actually feels like an excessively severe punishment.
That's all forms of electronic communication gone (so no job hunting anyway), anything he plays computer games on, including all his TVs, most of his kitchen, all his audio equipment, his home security system, the cat feeder, any photographic equipment bought this millenium, his car, most watches he owns, possibly his shower and boiler and probably half his lightbulbs.
He'd have been better ambushing his boss in the carpark and giving him a good kicking. Same £800 fine, same suspended sentence and he'd have kept all his kit. That.. doesn't feel right.
Question:
Would he qualify for unemployment payments (not sure what you call it there)? If he doesn't, is there other state support he would qualify for?
In most jurisdictions here, he wouldn't qualify for unemployment, but he could qualify for welfare payments (eventually) with the correct paperwork. That wouldn't be enough to afford housing in most areas, but would be enough for food.
That has always puzzled me - people sort of end up as well fed bridge trolls. Given the state of the economy in general, this may need addressing anyway (to be fair, it has required a good look for decades from a pure humanitarian perspective).
That said, this specific idiot didn't get into trouble through circumstances - he chose this himself.
A suspended sentence means he goes to prison if he breaks any other laws. Doing it again would cost lot more than for the first offence. There will most likely be other conditions attached his "release" too, breaching of which will result in going to prison.
The key is suspended sentence. It has 2 effects. It is on his record permanently and he must behave himself while he is under the sentence. The first means his record may turn up in a public records check (not sure about UK law but US law all court cases are public record by default). So a background check will likely disqualify him for many positions. The second means he has to on his best behavior. I am not sure what will get him tossed into prison (e.g. will a speeding ticket be enough?).
"City of London Police, the force that investigated Crispin's crimes, said in a statement that once Crispin left the bank he applied for another job at an investment management company and denied being under police investigation, thereby committing fraud."
Is it normal practice for the City of London Police to tell suspects that they are being investigated? Did that take place in this instance?
When its so blindingly obvious who the culprit is based on timeframe / employment circumstances of the individual.
I'm assuming a total overestimation of their skills & severe underestimation of the skills of those good at computer security incident investigations, especially when instead of being a needle in a haystack scenario for finding the culprit, you have a nailed on prime suspect & so early in the investigation a fine toothcomb will be run over their activities
People can be amazingly brilliant and astoundingly daft at the same time.
One chap I worked with demonstrated his brilliance by writing a very sophisticated virus from scratch. He demonstrated his astounding daftness by writing it at work, on his corporate PC, and testing it on the corporate network, and being surprised to be caught.
As they say, there's nowt so strange as folk
Honestly sounds like he had an overblown ego and figured "if they don't appreciate how brilliant my skills are and how I single handedly hold up this company then I'll show them".
Delt with plenty of people like that in all kinds of jobs - never ends well although is usually a relief for their former coworkers.
Many moons ago once dealt with a particuarly demanding customer who was the head of their IT dept and always knew best, even when it came to our services and how we operate...
As part of the integration project we needed some delegated access to one of there systems, said egomanic certainly provided us we suitable creds, and as he was engaged in a bun fight with other dept heads he thought the best course of action was to cc the dept group email addresses into our exchanges to show how he alone could get results from "troublesome suppliers" (the sort who you know ask for least privilege access, or refuse to amend your deployed stuff during business hours because they put the wrong details into a change request)...
Within 5 min of the email being received very panicked emails came directly from his underlings (reply all natch ;)) as the pillock had sent a root password to the storage array which lived inside there PCI complient infrastructure... The remainder of the project progressed well with their new head of IT, and the guy whose job it was to work with out systems sent us a nice box of chocs at crimbo happy the old boss was no longer there
I was blacklisted for the heinous crime of dropping off a hitch hiker at a peace camp a week after 911. The security services were a wee bit paranoid and trigger happy then. I got by for a few years doing sub-contract, off the books, work for contractors who knew me, but eventually the career-break lack of new knowledge does throttle anyone.
At one point you've got it, then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
