Edward Putman, 53, (pictured outside St Albans Crown Court) made his first appearance in the crown court following a three year police investigation
A man who won £2.5 Million on the National Lottery appeared in court today accused of faking the winning ticket.
Edward Putman, 53, made his first appearance in the crown court following a three year police investigation.
But, in a preliminary hearing, his barrister Lawrence Selby told St Albans Crown Court that Mr Putman would be making an application to dismiss the charge.
In October, Mr Putman appeared before magistrates to plead not guilty to fraud by false representation, namely that he produced a fraudulent National Lottery ticket intending to make a gain for himself in the sum of £2,525,484.
Appearing in court today, he was not required to enter a plea and the court heard that an application to dismiss the charge against him is likely to be heard in February next year.
Mr Putman, of King’s Langley in Hertfordshire, was paid out just over two and a half million pounds in 2009.
It related to a lottery draw on March 11 of that year when the winning numbers were 6, 9, 20, 21, 31 and 34 on a ticket bought in the Malvern or Worcester areas of Worcestershire.
Edward Putman’s £600,000 house in Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, where he has lived ever since his big win in 2009 . It is one of at least two properties he bought with the winnings
However, six years later in 2015, Camelot – the lottery operator – was fined £3 Million for paying out the claim.
In 2015, Hertfordshire Police’s Serious Fraud and Cyber Unit began an investigation into the claim.
Today Mr Putman was told that if his application to dismiss the case against him is unsuccessful on February 7, he will be required to provide a defence case statement.
His trial, which is likely to last between five and seven days, was fixed for April 23 next year.
He was granted unconditional bail.
Mr Putman (pictured) was told that if his application to dismiss the case against him is unsuccessful on February 7, he will be required to provide a defence case statement
Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.