Judges dismiss appeal on £2m bank fraud conviction  

The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals on conviction and sentence brought by a former bank manager who hid a £2m hole in the Royal Bank of Scotland International’s cash reserves. 

Gillian Balban, 53, of Bayview Terraces, was convicted in March 2024 on six charges including false accounting, fraud by abuse of position and fraud by false representation after a 10-week Supreme Court trial. 

She was convicted for falsifying debit and credit vouchers and recording fraudulent entries in the bank’s internal accounting systems. 

Balban was jailed in May 2024 for seven and a half years and will be eligible for parole in November this year having served a third of her sentence. 

Her lawyer Chris Finch laid out several grounds of appeal in his submissions to President of the Court of Appeal Sir Nigel Davis, and appeal judges Sir Patrick Elias and Sir Nicholas Underhill. 

Mr Finch told the court that the trial judge had directed jurors on dishonesty when the evidence from witnesses was that they had no recollection and that it “must’ve been Gillian”. 

“There was finger pointing at the appellant,” Mr Finch said. 

He added that the trial was “unnecessarily lengthy”, issues were “lost sight of” and that there was “never any proof of a deficit”. 

Mr Finch said the shortfall in the bank’s reserves was due a migration from different banking systems. 

“There was no money missing,” Mr Finch said. 

The appeal judges pointed out that witness evidence was that the bank had incurred a loss. 

In response Mr Finch said that many documents had been destroyed due to data protection policies and the evidence could not be attributed to an actual loss. 

He added that the substance of the case was “inherently weak” and that the charges on the indictment were misconceived. 

Mr Finch also told the appeal judges that there was a “toxic atmosphere” in the public gallery during the trial which was unfair to his client. 

During a previous hearing Mr Finch had asked the Court of Appeal to investigate a juror over concerns that he knew a witness in the trial. 

The evidence was a photo taken three months after the trial in which the former juror and a witness were pictured at a large party. 

The court investigated the matter and the juror was asked to answer questions about their relationship with the witness. The juror had told the Registrar that they had not recognised the name in the witness list as the first name was abbreviated.  

This witness in question did not give evidence in person and instead a witness statement was read out during the trial at the behest of the defence. 

On Tuesday, Mr Finch brought more images provided by Balban of the juror and witness.  

The appeal judges questioned when the images were taken, adding that the trial took place in 2024 and that cross-examination of a juror after trial is very sensitive as it undermines the jury system. 

Mr Finch put it to the judges that the juror could have been unconsciously biased. 

Director of Public Prosecutions Christian Rocca said there was no evidence that the juror had lied and that the witness in question was a “non-witness” as their evidence was unchallenged. 

Mr Rocca summarised the case for the appeal judges, submitting that the indictment followed the rules. 

He said the case was made “unnecessarily lengthy and complex” by the defence lawyers who represented Balban at the time of trial.  

He said the prosecution had tried exhaustively to agree facts with the defence but that very little was agreed. 

“The Crown did not change its position one iota,” Mr Rocca said.  

Mr Finch also submitted an appeal on sentence where he said the trial judge had set the starting point for sentencing too high and had failed to take into account several mitigating factors.  

He added that his client is virtually in solitary confinement as she is currently the only woman in prison. 

Mr Rocca said the trial judge had been “generous” in reducing the sentence by a year. 

After five hours of legal submissions, the appeal judges took ten minutes to return their judgement. 

Sir Nigel Davis told the court that the three judges had agreed to dismiss both appeals and their reasons will be delivered in due course.