Is convicted ex accountant Darren Upton practicing?

[DeludedKitten]

A man with nothing to hide will either be laughing up his sleeve at this nonsense or preparing a libel suit.

If there was a prospect of a libel suit, you'd think that the moderators or administrators (or owners) of this site would take proactive action to cut this thread off rather than allow continued speculation.

And yet they don't, which says a lot.

Or it just says that there is nothing libelous in this thread anyway.

HTH. BIDI...

[WordIsBond]

I have kept my head low from this thread to save myself from embarrassment as someone who swore blind they are not the same person

But you said you'd never met DJU. Any reasonably sceptical person would be slow to believe that DJR was DJU, but also to assume he couldn't be.

And those same reasonably sceptical people would have said, 'Sorry, SimonMac, if you haven't met DJU your testimony here is hardly iron-clad.' That's what I thought as soon as you said it.

So, it appears you got something wrong. Not as much egg on your face as on Dynamo/Hentons.

[Invisiblehand]

But you said you'd never met DJU. Any reasonably sceptical person would be slow to believe that DJR was DJU, but also to assume he couldn't be.

And those same reasonably sceptical people would have said, 'Sorry, SimonMac, if you haven't met DJU your testimony here is hardly iron-clad.' That's what I thought as soon as you said it.

So, it appears you got something wrong. Not as much egg on your face as on Dynamo/Hentons.

Do you think we'll get a comment from Dynamo / Hentons?

[mudskipper]

Do you think we'll get a comment from Dynamo / Hentons?

The response from the partners, via my accountant, to my email question is here

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2631099

[WordIsBond]

Agree 100% Could be some more victims on the way! I would be checking any online submissions he had done PDQ.

There's an alternative theory, if it is DJU. Maybe he's actually trying to get his life back on track, he's not doing the same things he did, he's trying to actually provide a good service honestly (which he certainly has the capability to do), and he's learned his lesson. He's having his clients check his online submissions. He's telling them to get payment details from HMRC, rather than providing them. In other words, he might be trying to do it right. He might have decided to be active here as a way to give back to a community he'd harmed.

That would be great -- but he's not done it in a way that builds trust. He could have gone to a reputable firm and asked to prepare accounts and help advise clients, but not have the authority to do online submissions. He could have been up-front with everyone he worked with. I wouldn't have the least problem with my accountant bringing on someone like him under those terms, and having him work on my accounts. Let the guy rebuild his life as long as it is under terms that can't hurt anyone.

Instead, he's hidden who he is, used his new identity to build up a clientele, and it looks like he just might be setting up to do, and could even already be doing, the same thing he did before.

Someone said they'd like to hear from some of his clients. I'd like to hear from the man himself, if it really is DJU. What was he thinking? What was he trying to do? Did he really think he'd get away with this for long? I give him credit for one thing, he had a really poor hand to play but he's played it like a boss and it worked for quite a while. And he obviously has a fine mind and he didn't let it go to waste while he was inside. But there's some kind of disconnect in thinking that you can re-enter a profession that is built on trust on secret terms, and not have it eventually catch up to you. Especially when your picture is all over the Internet. What made him think this would really work? It's an intriguing human nature situation. We'll probably never know, if it is him, what he was thinking. As I've gotten older I've become more interested in that kind of thing.

[Invisiblehand]

I'd love to hear from him as well. I imagine he is keeping an eye on these posts.

[Fred Bloggs]

Great post, WIB. We all try to give people benefit of the doubt. Wherever DJU is, I hope he is on the straight and narrow as a good citizen. If this stuff really is about the guy, and that's what he's trying to do - Then it seems he's learned not much and is trying to make a new start in a very odd way indeed. If the guy came on here and actually told us that the past was all a mistake, that he's a reformed character, has no direct control of client's business, that'd be a great way to start. But I guess either way if that were to happen, it's too late and the reputation is now beyond salvage?

[WordIsBond]

Great post, WIB. We all try to give people benefit of the doubt. Wherever DJU is, I hope he is on the straight and narrow as a good citizen. If this stuff really is about the guy, and that's what he's trying to do - Then it seems he's learned not much and is trying to make a new start in a very odd way indeed. If the guy came on here and actually told us that the past was all a mistake, that he's a reformed character, has no direct control of client's business, that'd be a great way to start. But I guess either way if that were to happen, it's too late and the reputation is now beyond salvage?

Maybe, maybe not. Look, I doubt there were seminars in prison about how to go about rebuilding your reputation as an accountant. So if he's made a false start here, well, it shows he probably doesn't have a really strong internal moral compass -- but then, that's hardly surprising.

The guy who posted here for the last almost three years showed that he can be A) very knowledgeable B) friendly C) helpful D) actually very likeable. The kind of guy you'd like to have a drink with, even if you might not want to give him your bank details. If he's DJU, I'll add 'creative' and 'able to come up with a functional plan in a tight spot.'

So can his reputation be salvaged? I'd say yes, but there's only one way to do it -- acknowledge that it is completely trashed, that no one can trust you and that you don't even trust yourself, and put yourself in a position where your obvious abilities can be used without trust being required. That means instead of being secretive about it work in a role where everyone involved knows who you are and watches you like a hawk. It means surrounding yourself with people whose integrity is unquestioned.

The best way for someone like this to be trusted is to ask everyone not to trust you and act in a way that shows you mean it. That has to mean a support role rather than being the main guy, and it likely means quite a bit less money. But it could mean he can reach the point where he can respect the guy he sees in the mirror, and that's worth more than money anyway.

Ok, enough philosophising, I need to go make some money so I can pay my own accountant.

[administrator]

Just to answer some of the questions and issues that have been risen here. The content on this forum is user generated by the contracting community and ContractorUK does not validate the identity of the users on the forum - it might be interesting and revealing in many cases if we did! Also the awards are voted for by the readers.

To the issue at hand – the identity of Darren Roberts. We were made aware by posts on this forum that there was a question regarding the mentions by others of Darren Roberts actually being the convicted fraudster Darren Upton. As you can imagine this is a not a matter that we took lightly and, despite us not saying much on the matter to date, we have been continuing to investigate this issue to try and get a conclusive outcome.

When this issue was initially raised we did ask Mr Roberts to provide us with proof of ID and a copy of his driving licence was emailed to us. Whilst this document clearly shows that it was issued to a Darren Roberts the document did not conclusively prove to us that the individual had not previously been known by another name or was valid. The document was provided to us out of goodwill and it is not our place to act on rumour or possibilities. All we can say is that we have since asked for further validation of identity.

We were still pressing for further proof of identity of Darren Roberts when we were advised that he was leaving his current firm. In recapping all of this to you I do not see how we could possibly have played this any differently. Whist we have been pushing for more concrete proof of ID - we are not judge and jury in this matter and could not make statements on what is simply hearsay at this point in time. There are also aspects of our investigations that I am not making light to you but we had followed other avenues in relation to this issue as well.

The safety of our site users is of the utmost importance to us and it is with this in mind that we took the steps that we did in order to try and get some positive proof as to the identity of Darren Roberts. We can see from Companies House that Darren Roberts is no longer a shareholder so there is no longer a need for us to pursue proof of his identity.

[SimonMac]

Just to answer some of the questions and issues that have been risen here. The content on this forum is user generated by the contracting community and ContractorUK does not validate the identity of the users on the forum - it might be interesting and revealing in many cases if we did! Also the awards are voted for by the readers.

To the issue at hand – the identity of Darren Roberts. We were made aware by posts on this forum that there was a question regarding the mentions by others of Darren Roberts actually being the convicted fraudster Darren Upton. As you can imagine this is a not a matter that we took lightly and, despite us not saying much on the matter to date, we have been continuing to investigate this issue to try and get a conclusive outcome.

When this issue was initially raised we did ask Mr Roberts to provide us with proof of ID and a copy of his driving licence was emailed to us. Whilst this document clearly shows that it was issued to a Darren Roberts the document did not conclusively prove to us that the individual had not previously been known by another name or was valid. The document was provided to us out of goodwill and it is not our place to act on rumour or possibilities. All we can say is that we have since asked for further validation of identity.

We were still pressing for further proof of identity of Darren Roberts when we were advised that he was leaving his current firm. In recapping all of this to you I do not see how we could possibly have played this any differently. Whist we have been pushing for more concrete proof of ID - we are not judge and jury in this matter and could not make statements on what is simply hearsay at this point in time. There are also aspects of our investigations that I am not making light to you but we had followed other avenues in relation to this issue as well.

The safety of our site users is of the utmost importance to us and it is with this in mind that we took the steps that we did in order to try and get some positive proof as to the identity of Darren Roberts. We can see from Companies House that Darren Roberts is no longer a shareholder so there is no longer a need for us to pursue proof of his identity.

If you have Darren Roberts driving licence that would include his date of birth, can you compare this to the known date of birth of Darren Upton, as said you can’t prove positive his past but you might be able to disprove it