A married dad-of-two accused of stealing £1.1m from North of England Coachworks spent £160k on escorts but was jailed for contempt of court after pawning a £20k Rolex to dodge a freezing order.
A married finance chief, who was sued for “fraud” by his former employers after splashing out £160,000 of company funds on escorts, has been handed a six-month prison sentence.
Asif Khan, 47, was accused of “stealing” around £1.1m of company money during his tenure at North of England Coachworks, the largest vehicle body shop in the north east. The firm claimed that the “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan squandered approximately £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl, Gemma Massey, once dubbed Britain’s “best paid porn star”.
In 2024, the dad-of-two agreed to pay the company a £500,000 settlement to resolve the civil claim against him, acknowledging that he owes the money “in respect of the frauds and fraudulent breaches of trust as alleged against him in this action.”
However, Mr Khan has only repaid about £550 of that sum and is now facing jail time after a judge sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment for pawning a £20,000 Rolex watch to prevent his former bosses from seizing it.
Sentencing him for contempt of court yesterday, High Court judge Mr Justice Jay stated that the pawning was in violation of a freezing order and Mr Khan had “pawned the watch…in order to place it out of the reach of the claimants.
“This matter is so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate,” said the judge, although he deferred the start of the sentence until April 17 to allow him time to file an appeal.
During the 2024 fraud trial, the court was informed that Mr Khan, from Newcastle, held a financial and managerial role at North of England Coachworks until 2019.
However, when significant irregularities with cheque payments and money transfers were detected, he was questioned and subsequently resigned, according to the company’s barrister Sam Neaman.
Neaman stated that investigations uncovered Mr Khan had been utilising company cheques and transfers for personal expenses not related to the company’s interests.
He claimed the company suffered a net loss of approximately £1.1m, with an estimated £160,000 of that sum going to named women, including roughly £56,000 to Miss Massey and her company alone.
“It is not just names, you will see an awful lot of information from the internet which establishes what these ladies did for a profession,” he said. “She is obviously one of many.”
The court previously heard that Miss Massey – a former dental nurse and beautician – was “self-described as a high class escort” on a web page presented as part of the case.
Miss Massey, a former partner of TOWIE star Kirk Norcross, is an Only Fans model and once bragged on the BBC about being the UK’s highest earning adult film actress.
Defending himself against the allegations, the married father expressed his “shame” for using company funds to pay escorts but maintained that he didn’t do anything his employers hadn’t approved of.
When questioned in the witness stand about whether his superiors had authorised him to spend money on prostitutes, Mr Khan stated: “Not specifically for that, but they were aware. In reality, they didn’t care what I spent that money on.
“The G Massey name was on there. They knew that was what I was doing.”
After several days of trial, Mr Khan consented to a judgement being entered against him in favour of the company for the sum of £500,000, which he was to pay by 4pm on August 6, 2024.
However, during yesterday’s hearing, Mr Justice Jay learned that Mr Khan had only paid approximately £550 to the company, and last May pawned his Rolex Daytona, which he was explicitly prohibited from “dealing with” by the freezing injunction.
The judge noted that the watch had been pawned shortly after an attempt was made to seize it from his home, when he chose not to disclose its location.
The funds borrowed against it were deposited into a bank account whose existence he had not disclosed, before being transferred into his wife’s business for a property purchase.
Upon discovering that the watch had been pawned, his former employers initiated proceedings to have him imprisoned for contempt of court.
Representing the company yesterday, barrister Emma Read alleged that, in addition to being in contempt, Mr Khan had made “no real attempt to satisfy the debt” he owes.
Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Jay said that, while he acknowledged being in contempt, Mr Khan had argued he didn’t understand the freezing injunction stopped him pawning the watch, as he could always retrieve it back.
And the loan had subsequently been redeemed and the watch handed over to North of England Coachworks, who now plan to sell it to recover some of their money back.
Sentencing him, the judge dismissed Mr Khan’s assertion that he didn’t understand that pawning the Rolex constituted “dealing with” it and was therefore a breach of the freezing order.
“He is sophisticated in financial affairs and must have understood that pawning a watch, in the same way as charging or mortgaging property, amounts to dealing with it,” he said.
“The act of pawning it was intended to place the watch outside the immediate custody and control of Mr Khan.
“He must have been aware that disposing of the loan monies from his account to his wife’s company account was a breach of the order.
“The seriousness of the matter is compounded by loan monies being paid into a bank account Mr Khan had not previously disclosed.
“I am far from convinced that he does fully appreciate the seriousness of the breach.
“I have come to the conclusion that I wouldn’t be performing my public duty if I suspended Mr Khan’s sentence.
“I have carefully reflected on this. I appreciate that he has considerable personal mitigation in the form of a supportive wife, two young children and he has remunerative employment.
“I am duty bound to impose an immediate custodial sentence in this case.”
Mr Khan was handed a six-month prison sentence for contempt, but the judge postponed his incarceration until April 17 to provide him with an opportunity to file an appeal.