Fraud police are said to be looking into claims Lotto winner Edward Putman faked his ticket
A convicted rapist who scooped a £2.5million jackpot may face handing back his winnings, as police look into claims he used a fake ticket.
Edward Putman, 52, was handed the life-changing sum after winning the National Lottery in 2009.
But claims subsequently surfaced that Putman had submitted a ‘deliberately damaged ticket’ and had been helped by Camelot fraud unit worker Giles Knibbs, who later killed himself, to carry out the deception.
A Gambling Commission report earlier this year found there was evidence the claim was likely to be fraudulent.
Now a Camelot whistleblower has come forward and fraud police are expected to ‘imminently’ hand over evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, The Sunday People reports.
Putman, who served four of a seven-year jail term for raping a 17-year-old girl in the 1990s, is said to be ‘shocked’ by the investigation and could lose his multi-million pound winnings if charged and convicted, under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
A source said: ‘He couldn’t believe his ears when he was told they were still investigating.
‘People in the investigation have been told that someone who works at the Lottery had finally come forward.
‘They’re the first person who has been willing to give evidence that the ticket may be fake.’
Putman, who chose to remain anonymous after his win, but was later revealed as a Lotto winner after he was jailed for a £13,000 benefits fraud in 2012, allegedly used an inside man working at Camelot.
He was handed information about an unclaimed ticket by Knibbs, 38, who worked in the fraud detection department.
Knibbs is understood to have told Putman which shop the legitimate winning slip was bought from and the exact time of the purchase.
Putman allegedly then bought a ticket from the same shop using the winning numbers before carefully scratching off the barcode and date to fool Camelot’s jackpot claims department.
Camelot worker Giles Knibbs, 38, who later killed himself, is said to have assisted Putman
Astonishingly, the then-Camelot chief executive Dame Dianne Thompson is said to have personally called Putman before authorising the £2.5million payout.
Putman agreed to share his winnings with Knibbs, sources said.
But when he reneged on his promise, Knibbs allegedly smashed the rapist’s car and the CCTV cameras on his £700,000 house in Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, last year.
Putman, a former builder, made a complaint to the police and Knibbs, who lived in St Albans, was then charged with blackmail and attempted burglary.
Three days before he was due in court Knibbs killed himself in October 2015.
Putman was arrested two weeks later when friends of Knibbs told police about the apparent lottery scam.
However, the rapist was released without charge due to a lack of evidence.
A subsequent Gambling Commission report into the case found there was evidence the claim was likely to be fraudulent.
The report criticised lotto operator Camelot for the way it had dealt with Putnam’s claim.
It stated there was ‘cogent evidence’ that his application was ‘more likely than not’ fraudulent.
Putman (right) is said to be ‘shocked’ fraud police are preparing a case against his 2009 win
The Gambling Commission also said Camelot may have breached the condition of its license which says their running of the lottery must be ‘fit for purpose’.
And it stated that the fact Mr Putman waited almost six months to claim his winnings, and did so just ten days before the deadline, should have aroused suspicion.
‘The circumstances of the claim made it an exceptional one…which should have caused concern,’ it said.
A total of 195 out of 270 pages on the dossier around Edward Putman’s winnings were redacted either in part or in full.
Camelot said it no longer has the winning slip and so it cannot be analysed further.
A Camelot spokesman at the time said: ‘Having investigated the circumstances of the alleged incident and having reviewed and strengthened the systems we have in place to prevent potential fraud, we are completely confident that the alleged fraud could only have been carried out under a unique set of circumstances and would certainly not be possible today.’