A couple were accused in court of operating a “slush” fund, as closing statements were made in a trial where they have been charged with stealing $1.2 million from four women.

Jaymo Durham, 55, and Keiva Maronie Durham, 44, deny the offences, which are alleged to have taken place between February 23, 2012, and July 31, 2019.

It is claimed that the couple stole the money from women who were all clients of Ageing and Disability Services, and made and used false statements in the same period.

They had faced nine counts in the Supreme Court case.

Before prosecutor Paula Tyndale began her closing speech yesterday, Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe instructed the jury to return not-guilty verdicts on three of the allegations of using false entries or statements.

The Crown offered no evidence on those.

Another three charges remain of making false entries or statements, as well as three theft-related charges.

Ms Tyndale told jurors: “There are four victims who are persons who we call vulnerable. Three are elderly and one, Loretta Smith, is a person with diminished capacity. So they were all vulnerable.”

The prosecutor dismissed the Durhams’ earlier evidence that they were “spiritual” and “Christian”, adding that the jury was not obliged to consider that or express sympathy for them.

Ms Tyndale said: “They mostly intended to use patients’ funds to assist in the operation of their businesses and assist in the personal interests of being generous and altruistic, their own words. And also assist generally in Mr Durham’s passion of [table tennis club] Smash and the tennis association.

“The funds were also used to renovate a suite in their offices.”

Ms Tyndale told the court that, between them, the Durhams were receivers for all four women but added: “Mrs Durham also had access, they confirmed later, he gave her access to all the receiver accounts.”

The four alleged victims are Doreen Stevens, Nancy Locke, and Muriel and Loretta Smith.

Ms Tyndale said: “In February 2012, Ms Stevens had close to $1.9 million [in accounts].

“At the beginning of 2017, January 2017, almost all of the accounts had been so depleted that there was probably less than $200,000 in all six accounts.

“The defendants were using them as slush funds. What we are submitting to you to decide is they were now in a state of urgency … to keep up [an image] as the generous people they claimed to be.

“And in June 2017, Mr Durham went to the Supreme Court and applied for permission to sell Ms Stevens’s property. Why? Because her expenses exceeded her income.

“You will recall her income came from her rental properties. He wanted to sell one of those properties because her substantial savings had been depleted by then.

“He wanted to sell that property so her financial needs for care and expenses could be met. And when Ms Stevens’s funds had been substantially depleted, Mrs Durham applied for receivership of Muriel Smith. She was what is known as ‘house poor’ and impoverished.

“She had no income and [her daughter] Loretta and her required funds, and their house needed to be sold.”

Ms Tyndale told the court that the Durhams “were desperate for money” and “almost immediately” in the middle of December 2017 they began to take money from the account of Nancy Locke.

The prosecutor listed numerous transactions.

Ms Tyndale stated: “In those three months, a total of $357,476.54 was transferred into their accounts and we have not heard a lick of evidence explaining that.”

Mr Durham gave a closing defence speech after lunch, and touched on his association with Ms Stevens, his godmother.

He told the jury: “You have an obligation to provide, as Ms Tyndale described, a just verdict and in order to do so you have to be convinced of the guilt of myself and my wife beyond reasonable doubt.

“In the case of Ms Stevens, I would never ever allow her to be in respite care, so my commitment to her was to never allow her to be in a position like that.

“Ms Stevens died after living the rest of her years in her own home. She was not in daycare.”

He maintained his innocence and that of his wife and asked the jury, “Why would people put themselves in such jeopardy? The prosecution have not asked that question.”

Mr Durham described the accusations as “beyond anything we could have conjured up”, adding: “It is not something anyone who values their freedom would be willing to do.”

He insisted: “The prosecution have provided not a single piece of evidence associating me in any active way.

“The truth is I had no involvement in any of this. And there is no reason for my wife to lie.

“No matter how damaging, the truth will speak for itself.”

He reminded jurors: “For you the jury, you have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that I committed the allegations.”

The trial continues before Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers