A POLICE officer has been jailed for a year for stealing his wife's jewellery and pawning it before trying to pin the blame on rogue workmen.
Nadim Ahmed, 29, reported to fellow officers that jewels and some electrical equipment had gone missing from his home.
He lodged a claim with his insurance company for £11,500 and provided a statement to his colleague.
But his wife Bushra later found her jewellery stashed in his car with pawn documents and confronted her husband.
Ahmed stood trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court where he was found guilty of stealing jewellery between January 2011 and December 2012, wasting police time and attempting to defraud Direct Line insurance.
He denied the charges and claimed his wife knew about the jewellery he pawned because they had money worries, and that she was trying to get him into trouble.
However, Sheriff Brian Adair told him: "As a serving police officer I found your evidence to be untruthful.
"You regularly avoided answering the simplest of questions. I did not believe your evidence."
Passing sentence yesterday, he said: "No other method of dealing with you is appropriate other than prison, in view of the nature of the charges, in particular the serious effect and loss to your wife in charge one."
In evidence Mrs Ahmed recalled becoming aware of the missing jewels when her sister came to borrow some in December 2012.
The 30-year-old stored the expensive items in the loft of the couple's home in the city's Possilpark - but when she went to check they were gone.
The haul included her engagement ring as well treasured necklace sets, bangles and other gems.
Mrs Ahmed said: "I initially thought I must have put it elsewhere. I started looking everywhere, but could not find it."
Ahmed, who has six years' police service, later made inquiries about making an insurance claim which he then cancelled without his wife knowing.
His call was played to the court and the PC seemed to suggest a man called "Dave" - who he hired to fix a TV aerial in his loft - could be responsible.
Mrs Ahmed said: "I was really upset at the time. There was a lot of sentimental value to me.
"He (Ahmed) told me that, being a police officer, he would deal with it."
She said she was later left stunned when - during a last-ditch attempt at finding the jewels - she discovered her jewellery boxes in Ahmed's car.
The computer software specialist recalled: "I was surprised. I peered inside and there were red boxes. I recognised them as my jewellery boxes."
The court heard how one was empty, but inside the other was a necklace set which had been a wedding gift from her husband.
Mrs Ahmed then discovered a receipt which she told the court was "an agreement that he had pawned some of the jewellery".
"I was shocked and could not believe what I was seeing," she said. "There had never been any discussion before about pawning jewellery as we had no financial difficulties."
Mrs Ahmed remembered being "hysterical" before eventually confronting her husband.
She later found three other pawn receipts detailing jewellery that had been taken. Ahmed insisted it was not her items that had been sold off, but "someone else's".
However, Mrs Ahmed decided to call the pawn shop in question and when she visited instantly recognised her jewellery.
She said "a lot more" of the jewellery that had been kept in the loft remained missing, including her engagement ring.
Mrs Ahmed said her marriage "completely broke down" as a result of this.
Ahmed claimed that twice he pawned jewellery after arguments with his wife and that she knew about it. He claimed his wife contributed nothing to the house except groceries, keeping her money for herself and expecting him to foot the bill for their house.
He also said that when they did not move to a bigger house as she wanted, she wanted "many home improvements"
He said: "I was paying for them because I was told 'it's your responsibility you're the husband'."
Defence lawyer Urfan Dar lodged an appeal against Ahmed's conviction which will be dealt with at a later date.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article