Decision of the Complaints Committee – 27994-20 Odewale
and Yadav v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Ayodele Odewale and Sara Yadav complained to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Gold
Rolex-wearing Imperial College manager and her con artist husband funded
millionaire lifestyle with private schooling, sports cars and luxury holidays
with mass credit card scam”, published on 15 June 2020.
2. The article reported on civil recovery proceedings
brought against a couple who were described as an “international con artist and
his partner” and as a “Nigerian conman and his British partner”. The article reported that they both “trawled
through public records to find information about their victims so they could
apply for credit cards in their names” and had “defrauded wealthy victims”. The
article also described the man as being “a career fraudster with convictions
for dishonesty between 1998 and 2016” and stated that in “2011, he was jailed
for two years for identity fraud”. It noted that he “gave evidence to the High
Court via video from Nigeria, as he is subject to a deportation order and
cannot return to the UK”. The article reported that the woman was found by the
High Court judge “to have knowingly benefited from assets gained through
unlawful conduct” and included a quote from the judge who said that the woman
had “'dishonestly chose[n] to turn a blind eye to the illegitimacy of those
funds'”. The article also described the “expensive cars” that had been owned by
the two people “including a Porsche Carrera, two Mercedes, and Yadav currently
drives ab Audi RS4”. It said that the couple sent their three children to
“private school which costs £37,000 per year” and “enjoyed frequent luxury
holidays in India, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Cape Verde and Turkey”.
3. The complainants, the couple in the article, said that
the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. The complainants said that
the article gave the misleading impression that they had been found guilty of a
criminal offence, despite it being a civil case, in particular by using the
phrase “credit card scam” and claiming they had “defrauded” people. The
complainants said there was no credit card scam, and that the female
complainant had not been found to have defrauded anyone. They also said that
she had not been found to have “trawled through public records”. The
complainant said it was inaccurate to report that the man had been jailed for
two years for “identity fraud”, when in fact he was convicted for possession of
false identity documents.
4. The complainants also said it was misleading to report on
the cars they owned as they had owned the cars over a long period of time, over
a period of eighteen years. They said it was misleading to report on their
holidays as this was not information included in the judgment. The complainants
also said it was inaccurate to report that their three children went to private
school as only two went to private school, and the other went to nursery.
5. The complainants also said it was a breach of Clause 12
to refer to the man as being “Nigerian”, as this was not relevant to the
article.
6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. The
publication said it did not report that the case was criminal, as opposed to
civil. The publication amended the article in order to state that it was only
the male complainant who had trawled through public records, rather than both
complainants. It said that “credit card scam” was used in order to provide a
plain English term in the headline to describe the actions of the complainants
that readers would understand. It said that the article went on to explain the
basis for this position. It said that similarly stating that the complainants
had “defrauded [the] wealthy” did not state that they were guilty of the crime
of fraud, but accurately represented that they had used other people’s
identities to gain money. However, upon receiving the complaint, the
publication amended the article to delete one of the references to defrauding,
and to make clear that the other related solely to the male complainant. Whilst
maintaining that these points could not be considered significant inaccuracies,
at the beginning of IPSO’s investigation the publication also offered to add
the following footnote to the article:
This article has been amended since publication to clarify
that while the judge found that Sara Bharat Yadav knowingly benefited from
assets gained through unlawful conduct and was ordered jointly with Ayodele
Oluseye Odewale to hand over £1,011,431 to the National Crime Agency under the
Proceeds of Crime Act, she was not convicted of fraud.
7. The publication stated that the judgment reported on
stated that the male complainant had been convicted of four counts of
possessing or controlling a false or improperly obtained identity document
contrary to s.6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010, and one count of possessing
or controlling a false or improperly obtained ID card contrary to s.25(5) of
the Identity Card Act 2006 and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. It said it
was not inaccurate to characterise this as “identity fraud”.
8. The publication noted that the cars mentioned in the
article and the holidays the complainants went on was information included in
the judgment reported on. The publication also amended the article so that it
reported that the complainants sent their children to private school, rather
than reporting that all three children attended private school.
9. The publication stated it had not breached Clause 12, as
reporting that one of the complainants was Nigerian was not prejudicial or
pejorative, and was genuinely relevant as it was referred to in the judgment,
as the complainant was in Nigeria and was subject to a deportation order.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be
avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
10. The article reported that the complainants had been
ordered to hand over more than £1 million after “defrauding wealthy victims”,
and went on to report that they had “trawled through public records”. This implied that the female complainant had
engaged in such conduct, when in fact the judgment had simply found that she
had “turned a blind eye” to the way the funds had been acquired. In these
circumstances the publication had failed to take care over the information it
had published regarding the findings made in relation to the female
complainant’s involvement and there was therefore a breach of Clause 1(i).
Where the article was a report of a court case, this was a significant
inaccuracy and required correction under Clause 1(ii). The publication had
offered a correction, which made clear that the complainant had not been
convicted of fraud, and the findings which had been made by the judge. However,
it did not also correct the inaccurate report that she had “trawled through
public records” or put the correct position on the record. There was a breach
of Clause 1(ii) in relation to this point.
11. The complainants had also said that the article gave the
impression that the case was criminal rather than civil, and that the reference
to “mass credit card scam” in the headline added to this impression. The
Committee noted that the article did not report that the proceedings against
the complainants were criminal in nature and that the article made clear that
the proceedings had been heard in the High Court. The text of the article
explained that the male complainant was said to have impersonated cardholders
in order to intercept replacement cards which were then used to purchase
designer watches which were then traded and sold, which summarised allegations
which had been made in the proceedings. In these circumstances, the Committee found that the reference to “mass
credit card scam" in the headline was not misleading. Additionally, where the male complainant had
been found guilty of possessing or controlling a false or improperly obtained
identity document and possessing or controlling a false or improperly obtained
ID card, it was not misleading to use the term “identity fraud” in the article.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
12. Where the judgment had referred to the cars which had
been owned and the holidays taken by the complainants, it was not misleading to
include them in the article. Reporting that all three of the complainant’s
children went to private school, when in fact only two children went to private
school and one to nursery, was not a significant inaccuracy requiring
correction. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
13. The complainants had said it was a breach of Clause 12 to
refer to the male complainant as being Nigerian. The Committee noted that
describing a person’s nationality is not of itself prejudicial or pejorative,
and where the male complainant’s nationality and the fact that he was in Nigeria at the time of the
proceedings were referred to in the judgment
the article was reporting on, the nationality of the complainant was genuinely relevant to the story. There
was no breach of Clause 12.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.
Remedial Action Required
15. Having upheld a breach of Clause 1, the Committee
considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the
Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the
publication of a correction and/or an adjudication, the terms and placement of
which is determined by IPSO.
16. The Committee considered that the publication did not
take the necessary care when reporting that the female complainant had trawled
through public records. The Committee considered that the appropriate remedy
was the publication of a correction to put the correct position on record. A
correction was considered to be sufficient, as the claim was not the central
point of the article.
17. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.
The correction should appear as a footnote to the article, as the article had
already been amended by the publication. This wording should only include
information required to correct the inaccuracies that the female complainant
had not been found to have trawled through public records or to have defrauded
people. The wording should also be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make
clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent
Press Standards Organisation.
Date complaint received: 14/09/2020
Date decison issued: 25/03/2021
Independent Complaints Reviewer
The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints
Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The
Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did
not uphold the request for review.