TWO SISTERS who callously targeted a Penrith haulage firm boss in a fraud that netted them £1.2m repeatedly threatened their victim.

Joanne Palmer, 40, and Stephanie Palmer, 38, who also conned a firm in Yorkshire out of almost £300,000, were brought to justice after a bank became suspicious and the victim's daughter did her own detective work.

Police then became involved, and uncovered how the sisters subjected their victim to a “relentless” campaign of pressure and threats.

At Carlisle Crown Court, the Palmer sisters this week faced a jury trial over allegations of fraud and blackmail. On the second day of the case, they both pleaded guilty to the two fraud allegations they each faced.

They were cleared of the blackmail charges on the judge’s direction.

As he opened the case on day one of the trial, prosecutor Tim Evans outlined how the two sisters, helped by two other women who agreed to help them hide their illegal profits, carried out the high-value fraud.

Mr Evans said that in 2017 the woman who acted as company secretary for the Penrith firm SI & S Hastings Limited began to get calls from a woman who was trying to sell advertising space, both in a magazine and online.

“She regarded these as just standard advertising contacts and asked that she be sent some paperwork and she would consider the proposition,” said the barrister.

“No paperwork came and certainly no advertisements were placed. Nor did she or her company receive any material sent supporting the placing of advertisements or properly invoicing for them.

“Of course, there could be no invoicing or business documents because no advertising was ever done.” Nor was anything signed by the company secretary, who regarded the contact as “cold calling for business”.

Following that initial call, the court heard, the fraudsters made more calls, claiming they were owed money for ‘advertising’.

When the company secretary pointed out that she had not agreed commission any advertisements, the callers said she had agreed verbally, and that there was in effect an oral contract, said Mr Evans.

The barrister continued: “It may be that that this point the panic started and the callers, the Palmer sisters, smelt that panic and realised that they had a woman who was falling for it. So they went into overdrive.”

Their victim was then bombarded with calls demanding payment from Joanne Palmer and Stephanie Palmer – calls to her business phone and to her personal mobile, leaving the woman with no escape.

Mr Evans said: “The calls threatened that bailiffs would be at her home within the hour if she did not make payments.

“They were abusive and threatened to ‘finish her business’ and some said that if she did not pay, they were going to hurt her children and grandchildren. Due to the threats being made she was scared and convinced that the threats would be carried out so began to make payments.”

Large sums were paid to the sisters and to a lesser extent the Palmers' associate Kelly Shaw, 41, who received in the region of £80,000, the court heard. In fear, the victim felt trapped and did not know how to escape from the situation.

Mr Evans said: “These fraudsters had got her in just the state they wanted her – and that’s what skilled, professional, ruthless, persistent fraudster do.”

The barrister then explained how the scam ended.

He told the court: “This fraud came to light when her bank became concerned about these enormous sums going out of her account which plainly did not fit with any business pattern for the transport company…

“The police visited and still terrified by the threats to her family and business, [the victim] initially told the police that she was getting the money back and that everything was alright and she was not being defrauded.”

By the end of June 2018, the woman was so down and upset that she confided in her daughter and another family member, confirming that she was still receiving calls demanding money.

“Her daughter diverted the business phone to her mobile and soon she too began to receive calls making demands for monies,” said Mr Evans.

“She pretended to be [the company secretary] during these calls and made recordings of them which were passed to the police. She also recorded the numbers that were ringing her.” By the time they were stopped, the Palmer sisters had managed to defraud the company out of £1,221,634.

Joanne and Stephanie Palmer were the leading lights in the fraud, and it was their phones that were used when the threats were made.

No calls are made by Kelly Shaw or another of the Palmers' associates Stephanie Charnock, 43, who have both admitted money laundering – helping the sisters to disguise their criminal profits.

Mr Evans said the second fraud targeted the former company secretary of Bridlington Shellfish Company Limited in East Yorkshire. In September 2018 she began getting calls from a woman claiming the company owed money for advertising.

The woman said – and here the menaces supporting again the count of blackmail - that the company were to be taken to court for the outstanding debt and that if the bills were not paid the bailiffs would be coming to the business.

On August 23, she was bombarded with three calls in two minutes, demanding payment.

“There was relentless calling by Joanne Palmer on virtually every day of early October until £4,000 was transferred on then two payments totalling £7,000 in September – both to Joanne Palmer,” said Mr Evans.

In total, the firm was conned out of £298,178. The sisters and Kelly Shaw will be sentenced on August 4 after the Probation Service has prepared background reports.

In the meantime, they were all granted bail on condition that they have no contact with the victims.

Court records show the Palmer sisters live at The Precinct, Romiley, Stockport, while Shaw lives at Winterburn Green, Stockport. A fourth woman, Stephanie Charnock, of Maplecroft, Stockport, admitted money laundering at an earlier hearing.

As he adjourned the case, Judge Nicholas Barker told the three defendants in court this week: “All [sentencing] options are open, although custody remains uppermost in the court’s mind.”