Mold Crown Court heard the numbers. Christian Williams benefited from his crimes to the tune of £163,051.70. His assets meant he could pay back exactly £1.
That single pound — against more than £163,000 — is the gap fraud experts say victims of rogue traders face every day. The criminal justice system can put a builder behind bars.
Getting the money back is another matter entirely. Williams, 54, trading as Chris Williams Construction, is serving two years for theft and three counts of fraud by false representation. Four families were caught in his pattern of deceit.
One victim, a father of three, finished his own two-storey extension himself after Williams walked away. Shelley Sawkins, 75, and her husband Barry, 63, paid Williams roughly £30,000 for an extension that was never finished.
Water poured through the incomplete roof. The couple then spent another £50,000 fixing the botched job — almost £30,000 more than the original £21,000 quote. About £20,000 of that went to other builders who had to repair the mess.
“The building work took every penny they had,” the court heard. Consumer protection specialists point to a grim reality. A Proceeds of Crime Act hearing can establish the full benefit of offending.
But if the defendant has spent the money — on holidays in Lanzarote, on days out at the races, on Facebook photos of a lifestyle the victims funded — the court order is often worthless. Williams left a trail.
Shelley Sawkins called him while he was supposed to be working on her bungalow in Buckley, Flintshire. She realised he was in Lanzarote. Spending money she had given him.
The technical reality of the Sawkins’ situation is brutal. They paid for an extension.
They got a leaking roof. They then paid £50,000 more to undo the damage. The repair bill alone tells the story.
Fraud examiners say cases like this expose a structural weakness. A rogue builder can promise work, take money, deliver nothing, and face a criminal sentence. But the financial penalty — the part that could actually compensate victims — often amounts to nothing.
Williams could only pay back £1. The Sawkins are out tens of thousands.
The case raises a question that keeps recurring in consumer courts across the UK. What is the point of a Proceeds of Crime Act order when the defendant has no assets left to seize? The law can calculate the benefit.
It cannot always recover it. Williams admitted his crimes.
He is in prison. The Sawkins are left with a repaired roof, a drained bank account, and a legal victory that cost them almost everything they had. The gap between what a rogue builder promises and what he delivers can be measured in both pounds and trust.
