A CROOKED solicitor who plundered his elderly clients’ accounts of more than £500,000 in what was described as “robbing Peter to pay Paul” was jailed on Friday for four years.

Two of Giles Scott’s four victims - over whom he had power of attorney - have since died, Teesside Crown Court was told.

The victims included a 78-year-old retired vicar who was also defrauded by Scott’s carer wife Clare, who was jailed for a year.

Philip Standfast, prosecuting, said that although some money was returned, the net loss to the four victims stood at £342,000.

The daughter of the former Anglican priest, who lives in Easingwold, near York, described how her mother’s health had declined rapidly – she has since been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

She also said Giles Scott’s offending, which left her £108,000 in the red, meant she could no longer afford to live in her two bedroom flat.

“The effect of this crime has to be lessen her last years which should have been spent in peace and with no worries.”

The niece of another victim, now 100-years-old, said: “If she had the capacity to realise what had happened she would be absolutely devastated by what Giles Scott has done.”

Scott, 63, a former senior partner at the Langleys practice, in York, and his 62-year-old wife were thought of as pillars of the community where they lived in Stearsby, about ten miles south of Thirsk.

But he said Giles Scott “grossly abused” his position of trust with his employer, transferring large amounts of cash from his victims' bank accounts to his own or to a joint account and had targeted them on the basis of their vulnerability.

He admitted five counts of fraud, six of theft and seven counts of transferring criminal property.

Clare Scott, who did the vicar’s shopping, cooked her meals and also took her to appointments, overcharged her for car journeys and also laundered £17,800 through her own account to pay for a flat for her daughter and a Volkswagen Tiguan.

The couple’s offending stretched from 2009 up until Giles Scott’s arrest on November 13, 2015.

James Bourne-Arton, for Giles Scott, explained how he faced mounting debts and during a period of depression he began taking out credit cards to pay for them.

“He was paying out on credit cards three times what he was receiving in his salary before taking into account his other outgoings.”

He added: “He is a man of not just no previous convictions, but of positive good character. His plea clearly reflects his shame and great remorse.

“He cannot forgive himself because of the effect on the victims and his wife.”

Alastair Campbell, for Clare Scott - who was found guilty after a trial of fraudulently abusing her position as a carer and two counts of transferring criminal property, charges she denied - said her role had been peripheral and, but for her husband’s actions, she would not be in court.

He said she had offered genuine friendship and care to the retired vicar and felt “exploited and manipulated” by her husband.

The barrister also claimed she was unaware of where the money going into their joint account was coming from, nor that it belonged to vulnerable people.

Judge Peter Armstrong said the crimes had a serious detrimental effect and told Giles Scott: “You plundered these accounts in order to fund your financial difficulties.”

He said Scott’s desperation was shown by £20 he had taken from one of the victims, even after he was sacked from his job.

The judge said: “People should be able to trust their high street solicitor with their money.”

He said Clare Scott, who now lives in Otley, West Yorkshire, had shown no remorse, even if hers was a lesser role.

In a statement Detective Sergeant Jonathan Rowland of North Yorkshire Police’s economic crime unit said: “This was a lengthy fraud investigation where the most vulnerable were targeted by those who they truly trusted.

“These crimes were committed by two extremely greedy individuals who saw opportunity and took it, irrespective of the consequences to the victims and their own family.”

The court was told that Langleys hoped to repay all of the stolen cash, but that was dependant on a successful claim with their own insurers who had yet to pay out.