Counterfeit businessman who sold fake watches through website called 'Wristy Business' is jailed again – for breaking court order within an hour

Warren Chung-Williams was jailed in June last year for selling the counterfeit goods through his company, Wristy Business Ltd.

A court heard at the time that he also had previous convictions for theft and fraud relating to counterfeit credit cards, and fraud relating to counterfeit Oyster cards, with a judge describing him as a “a disreputable and dishonest man”.

Chung-Williams was originally prosecuted in 2018 after a North Yorkshire resident bought a fake watch from the Wristy Business website and reported it to local Trading Standards.

The 38-year-old from London was sentenced again at Teesside Crown Court to 10 monthsfor contempt of court.

The court heard Chung-Williams had made multiple breaches of a restraint order, including through the sale of two vehicles and dissipating the sales proceeds, opening eight new bank accounts and dissipating monies within the accounts, and making arrangements to have £113,000 paid into an account of which the prosecution was unaware before dissipating the funds, the latter of which was “within an hour” of service of the order.

The breaches were discovered by financial investigators at North Yorkshire Trading Standards and the North East Regional Economic Crime Unit (RECU), and also included using an account in a false name, for which he had obtained a false passport to dissipate money, using a company that he had not declared to the prosecution to dissipate assets and continuing to sell watches through a new business, Watch Spot - although the prosecution has no evidence these were counterfeit - and dissipating the assets generated.

As a result, Chung-Williams was able to use and dissipate £254,594.42, which should have remained restrained and unused.

Sentencing him, His Honour Judge Carroll said: “You showed a complete disregard of the Restraint Order placed upon you. This is a genuinely shocking case in how you behaved. You were previously dealt with for Trading Standards offences for selling counterfeit watches.

“Provision was made for your reasonable living expenses at a rate of £250 per week (within the restraint order). If that was insufficient it was open to you to apply to the court and explain and ask for more. The provisions are intended to provide fairness in relation to your needs.

“What you demonstrated was deliberate, determined and devious thwarting of the order and conduct or a pattern of behaviour within an hour, if not less, of receiving the order. It was clearly and carefully planned. I am told, and I accept, you are an extremely intelligent man. Your behaviour demonstrates significant intelligence. But you attached it thoroughly to your dishonest behaviour.

"You undertook, over an extended period of time, a whole series of actions with the sole purpose of sidestepping the restraint order, to the tune of £254,594.42.

The judge continued: "You received the restraint order at 4pm. At 4.06pm you received an email from someone in relation to putting a very substantial sum into your bank account. Immediately you set about using a system of a false bank account, in a false name, and diverted money to an account set up to be as untraceable as you could make it. It is hard to think of a more glaring example of financial deception.”

“It is hard to think of a more glaring example of financial deception.”

Chung-Williams was also made the subject of a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act today. He was found to have benefited from his original offences by £1.535m and was ordered to repay £37,050.37 within three months. Should he fail to do so, he will face a further 18 months’ imprisonment in default.

Following the hearing, County Councillor Andrew Lee, Executive Member for Trading Standards, said: “We have an excellent financial investigations team at trading standards who, working together with the North East Regional Economic Crime Unit, have uncovered the complete disregard this defendant has shown to an order of Teesside Crown Court and the legal process of Proceeds of Crime Act asset confiscation.

This case should act as a warning to other suspects who think they can behave in this way and avoid detection.”