Civil servant admits he 'made mistakes' juggling five government jobs

A 55-year-old civil servant stands accused of defrauding the public purse of nearly £284,000 by simultaneously holding five full-time government positions while failing to disclose his other employments. Kashim Chowdhury, from East London, faces nine counts of fraud at Southwark Crown Court, denying both dishonest intent and the aim of making a dishonest gain. Prosecutors allege he exploited the post-pandemic shift toward remote work to maintain overlapping contracts with various departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department of Health and Social Care. At the peak of the alleged scheme in spring 2023, Chowdhury was contracted to work 183 hours per week, a total exceeding the available hours in a seven-day period. Despite this impossible schedule, he received full-time wages for each role, with records showing he earned £11,000 in a single month during 2023. The trial has featured testimony from multiple line managers describing Chowdhury’s inability to perform fundamental duties. Abigail Mounde, his supervisor at the Department for Business and Trade from December 2022 to May 2023, characterized his performance as very poor. She stated that he did not operate at the expected grade level and failed to organize basic meetings with colleagues upon joining the department. Mounde noted that he rarely asked questions and lacked the initiative typical of experienced project managers. Consequently, she referred him to human resources due to concerns that he would not pass his probationary period. During this period, she was informed that Chowdhury suffered from severe depression linked to his mother’s cancer diagnosis. Similar accounts emerged from other agencies. Arvind Thandi, a team leader at the Food Standards Agency, observed that Chowdhury appeared disengaged and frequently stared into space during virtual interactions. She attributed his lack of focus to his claims of caring for a seriously ill mother, though she also noted persistent internet connectivity issues. At the UK Health Security Agency, line manager Carol Hedland reported that Chowdhury’s conduct, attitude, and productivity were extremely low. On one occasion, she recalled receiving a call regarding his substandard work, during which he hung up on her, claiming she was badgering him. Another manager, Aleesha Adams, described a video call in May 2023 intended to support his return to work after an absence. She expressed surprise upon seeing him wearing white makeup, which she believed was an attempt to disguise his appearance. As the call progressed, the makeup rubbed off, revealing darker skin underneath. Prosecuting counsel Lucy Organ described this incident as demonstrating the lengths to which the defendant went in his deception. Chowdhury testified in his defense, admitting that he made mistakes driven by overwhelming stress and fear of losing his livelihood. He rejected allegations of poor performance, stating that he disputed all criticisms regarding missed deadlines or subpar output. He explained that the jobs served as a lifeline during a difficult period involving his mother’s declining health. He claimed the roles provided a necessary connection to the outside world and acted as a distraction from his personal struggles. Chowdhury disclosed a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in 2015, which he said was triggered again in 2021. He argued that several managers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, East London NHS Trust, and the Department for Health and Social Care were aware of his concurrent employment. The prosecution contends that Chowdhury maintained secrecy through remote work arrangements and the strategic use of medical documentation. They argue that he presented himself as the sole carer for his elderly mother to justify remote access. Furthermore, prosecutors highlighted inconsistencies in his use of sick notes. While he submitted certificates citing mixed anxiety and depressive disorder to some employers, he withheld such documentation from others. This selective disclosure, according to the prosecution, underscores the dishonest nature of the arrangement. The financial impact of the fraud is substantial, with Chowdhury having accumulated earnings from eight different employers over a three-year span. His role at Defra alone carried a salary of £52,000. Witnesses also addressed the broader implications of such conduct. When asked what action she would take if she discovered an employee held another full-time position, Thandi stated she would seek human resources advice. She emphasized that, to her knowledge, no one else in the civil service worked another full-time job concurrently. The jury continues to hear evidence as the case progresses, focusing on the discrepancy between the high volume of contracted hours and the actual productivity delivered by the defendant. The legal proceedings center on whether Chowdhury’s actions constituted criminal fraud or merely administrative errors resulting from personal crisis.