Civil Servant Kashim Chowdhury Admits 'Mistakes' Over Five Public Jobs
Chowdhury tells Southwark Crown Court he was 'overwhelmed and stressed' but denies criminal intent over more than £284,000 in pay
By AXY Business Desk ·
Key points
- Kashim Chowdhury, 55, from east London, admitted making mistakes while holding several public-sector jobs but said there was no criminal intent.
- Prosecutors allege he held five full-time public-sector jobs in spring 2023 and fraudulently earned more than £284,000.
- He was contracted to work 183 hours a week, more than the 168 hours in a seven-day week.
- Chowdhury says some managers at four public bodies knew about his other jobs, and he denies all nine fraud counts.
- The jury at Southwark Crown Court has yet to reach a verdict.
Kashim Chowdhury, a civil servant from east London, has admitted making mistakes while working several full-time public-sector jobs at the same time. Giving evidence at Southwark Crown Court, the 55-year-old told the jury: 'I do not believe there was criminal intent.' He faces nine counts of fraud and denies acting dishonestly or intending to make a dishonest gain. Prosecutors allege he fraudulently earned more than £284,000 by holding the jobs without telling his employers about the others. The jury has not yet reached a verdict.
The case is one of the more unusual public-sector fraud trials to reach a London courtroom in recent years, mainly because of the scale of the alleged overlap. Prosecutors say Chowdhury was not simply holding one extra post on the side. They say he held five full-time roles at once, each paying a full-time salary, and that the arrangement ran for a sustained period. Chowdhury does not dispute that he had several jobs. His defence rests on the claim that some managers knew about the arrangement and that he never intended to cheat anyone.
What the prosecution alleges
The prosecution says that at the height of the arrangement, Chowdhury held five full-time jobs within the public sector, each on a full-time salary. In the spring of 2023, he was employed by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), the UK Health Security Agency, the Food Standards Agency, the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office. Those are five separate government bodies, each with its own managers, payroll and contract terms.
The jury was told that throughout this period he was contracted to work 183 hours a week. That is more than the 168 hours that exist in a seven-day week. A contract cannot be fully carried out if it asks for more hours than the calendar contains, and that arithmetic is central to how the prosecution frames the case. It suggests that the paperwork and the reality of the work were not the same thing.
The money involved is also large. Each job paid a full-time wage, and Chowdhury was paid £11,000 for a single month's work in 2023. Over the wider period, the prosecution puts the total it says he obtained fraudulently at more than £284,000. Those figures are allegations that the jury must test against the evidence. They are not findings.
Chowdhury's explanation
Chowdhury's defence has centred on his mental state. He told the jury he had made mistakes because he was 'overwhelmed and stressed'. He said he had felt 'terror and panic' at the thought of losing his livelihood, which suggests he believed that any disclosure of the overlapping work could end his income.
He told the court he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, usually called PTSD, in 2015. PTSD is a mental health condition that can develop after frightening or distressing experiences. Its symptoms can include intrusive memories, anxiety, low mood and difficulty coping with pressure. Chowdhury said the condition was triggered again in 2021.
A diagnosis does not, by itself, answer the central question in a fraud trial, which is whether the defendant acted dishonestly. But it can help a jury understand why a person may have behaved as they did, and whether they were capable of forming the intent the prosecution must prove. How much weight jurors give to that evidence will be a matter for them, guided by the judge's directions on the law.
Why his managers' knowledge matters
One of the most important questions in the case is what Chowdhury's employers knew. The prosecution alleges he failed to reveal that he had other full-time employment. Chowdhury told the jury that some of his managers did know about his other roles.
He named four organisations whose managers, he said, were aware of his other jobs. They were Defra, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, East London NHS Trust and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC). These are separate public bodies, so the jury will need to hear what each manager knew, when they knew it and whether anyone agreed to the arrangement in writing or otherwise.
The distinction matters in law. Under the Fraud Act 2006, the main fraud offences in England and Wales require the prosecution to prove that the defendant acted dishonestly and intended to make a gain or cause a loss. Dishonesty is judged by the jury against the standards of ordinary decent people. If Chowdhury's managers were told about the other jobs and accepted them, that could weaken the claim that the concealment was deliberate. If they were not told, it could support the prosecution's case that the arrangement depended on secrecy.
How remote work hid the overlap
The prosecution says Chowdhury was able to keep the overlapping jobs hidden partly because he worked entirely remotely. In an office, colleagues might notice when someone is absent, takes calls for another employer or appears to be working unusual hours. When everything is done from a laptop at home, those signals disappear, and it becomes harder for a manager to see how much work is really being done.
Remote working became common across British public services and private firms during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, and it brought real benefits, including flexibility for people with caring responsibilities. That context matters here because the case touches on exactly that flexibility. Chowdhury told his employers he was the sole carer for his elderly mother. The prosecution alleges he 'exploited this opportunity'.
Caring duties are a legitimate reason for asking for flexible working, and most employers will accommodate them. The question in this trial is narrower. Prosecutors argue that a genuine caring role was used as cover for an arrangement that allowed him to hide other paid work. The defence will presumably argue the opposite. The reported evidence does not say how the caring arrangement was checked or whether it was disputed in detail, so readers should treat that part of the case as still open.
Performance and the managers' evidence
Several of Chowdhury's line managers have given evidence, and a succession of them told the jury that he performed poorly in his roles. This evidence can cut in more than one direction. Prosecutors may use it to argue that someone holding five full-time jobs could not realistically have done any of them properly, which fits the picture of posts that were not being fully worked. The defence may use the same evidence to show that his struggles were linked to the stress he described in court.
Whatever the jury makes of it, the performance evidence adds a human layer to the case. It shows how the arrangement looked from inside the teams that depended on him, and it is likely to be closely examined in cross-examination.
How fraud cases like this are decided
Fraud trials in England and Wales are heard by juries at the Crown Court. Jurors are ordinary members of the public who decide the facts. The judge explains the law, including the meaning of dishonesty and intent, and the jury must be sure of guilt before it can convict. If jurors have a reasonable doubt on a count, they must acquit on that count. Each of the nine counts is considered separately, so the jury could reach different verdicts on different charges.
Documentary evidence usually carries a lot of weight in cases of this kind. Contracts, timesheets, payroll records, emails and approval forms can show what was agreed and what was known. Witness memories of conversations are harder to test, especially years later. The jury will need to balance those two kinds of evidence against each other.
The civil service has its own standards too. The Civil Service Code sets out the values that civil servants are expected to uphold, including honesty and integrity. A breach of that code can lead to disciplinary action, which is separate from any criminal case. Readers should note that the trial is about whether Chowdhury committed criminal offences, not simply whether he broke employment rules.
Why it matters beyond one courtroom
For ordinary taxpayers, the case raises a basic question about public money. Public bodies pay salaries from budgets funded by taxes, and they rely on contracts and declarations to know who is working for them and how many hours they are doing. If those checks fail, the money paid out can be large, and the cost falls on the public purse.
For public employers, the case is a reminder of how much depends on verification. Departments that hire remote staff, and managers who sign off contracts, may review how they check whether a person's stated hours match the work they are paid to do. Declarations of other employment, and checks on total working time across multiple employers, may get closer attention, though any changes would depend on how the courts and departments respond.
For people who work flexibly, especially those with caring responsibilities, the case is a sensitive one. Employers are likely to be wary of arrangements that cannot be verified, and that caution could affect honest staff who genuinely need flexibility. Readers should keep in mind that the trial concerns one man's alleged conduct, and that nothing has yet been proved.
What to watch next
The trial continues at Southwark Crown Court. The jury will hear the rest of the evidence, including any further testimony from managers and from Chowdhury himself. The judge will then sum up the law for the jury, and the jury will consider its verdict on each of the nine counts.
Several questions are likely to decide the outcome. The most important is what each of his managers knew about his other jobs. Another is whether the jury accepts that his mental health affected his conduct in a way that bears on intent. A third is how the documents describing his hours, pay and caring arrangements stack up against the prosecution's account.
Whatever the verdict, the case will be read closely by government employers and by people who manage remote teams. For now, the key facts are these. Chowdhury admits making mistakes, says he did not intend crime and denies the charges. Prosecutors say the pay was obtained through concealment. The jury has the task of deciding which account it believes.
Questions and answers
Who is Kashim Chowdhury?
Kashim Chowdhury is a 55-year-old civil servant from east London who is on trial at Southwark Crown Court. He faces nine counts of fraud and denies acting dishonestly or intending to make a dishonest gain.
How much money is Kashim Chowdhury accused of earning fraudulently?
Prosecutors allege Chowdhury fraudulently earned more than £284,000 by holding several full-time public-sector jobs without telling his employers about the others. He was paid £11,000 for a single month's work in 2023, according to evidence in court.
Why does Kashim Chowdhury say he made mistakes?
Chowdhury told the jury he was 'overwhelmed and stressed' and felt 'terror and panic' at the thought of losing his livelihood. He also said he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2015 and that it was triggered in 2021.
What happens next in the Chowdhury fraud trial?
The jury will hear the rest of the evidence and then decide on each of the nine fraud counts. The trial is continuing at Southwark Crown Court, and no verdict has been reached.
Topics: Kashim Chowdhury, Southwark Crown Court, public sector fraud, civil service, Defra, UK Health Security Agency, fraud trial
Sources: BBC Business RSS