A former Dutch police worker has been convicted after fraudulently claiming £16,000 in benefits.
Agustin Ridderstap and his wife Jayne were sentenced at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court after admitting the scam.
Ridderstap, 72, admitted that he failed to tell the Department of Work and Pensions about a change in the Buckhaven couple’s circumstances between 2010 and 2015.
He failed to declare a pension that was being received by his wife and claimed the five-figure sum in Pension Credit.
His wife, Jayne, formerly of Alison Street in Buckhaven, pled guilty to a charge of allowing her husband to claim £6000 to which they were not entitled.
Defence solicitor Megan Davidson told the court her client was a 72-year-old man with no previous convictions who had lived a very “pro-social lifestyle”.
She added that Mr Ridderstap has been employed for most of his life including serving for the Dutch police.
“Mr Ridderstap has taken responsibility for this from an early stage and offered an appropriate plea in the hope that the matter would be resolved quickly.”
Defence solicitor Michelle Renton, appearing for Mrs Ridderstap, added that her client didn’t tell her husband about a pension she had been receiving.
As a result, it was not declared on a form for the Department of Work and Pensions. She added that her 70-year-old client was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis.
The court also heard how the couple had started paying the money back.
The duo narrowly avoided a custodial sentence and were instead handed restriction of liberty orders.
Sentencing, Sheriff James MacDonald said: “You appear before me as a first offender having pled guilty to an offence of benefit fraud involving a substantial sum of money.
“There can be no doubt that what occurred here was fraudulent.
“I take note of your previous good character and the positive contribution you have made to society during your working life.
“While I am considering the imposition of custody, I must consider the alternatives. An alternative to custody must in itself amount to a substantial penalty.
“I’m satisfied that a restriction of liberty order would be suitable and would be appropriate.
“I therefore propose to deal with this matter by a restriction of liberty order over a period of nine months reduced from 12 on account of the resolution which was proposed several months ago.”
Sheriff MacDonald told Ridderstap that he must remain indoors between 8pm and 7am for the first six months.
Thereafter, the restriction order will only be in place on Monday to Friday for the remaining three months.
Mrs Ridderstap was also placed on a restriction of liberty order for a period of three months and was told she would be monitored electronically.
