A former Bermuda Gas employee accused of obtaining money by false pretences from his employer was found not guilty in Magistrates? Court yesterday.

Raymond Knight, 41, of Mount Hill Mews, Pembroke left smiling and shook hands with a prison guard as he left the courtroom as Magistrate William Francis finished reading his judgment.

Knight denied that he obtained a total sum of $41,965.50 instead of $16,708 by tendering 18 different invoices which overstated the work completed of refurbishing gas cylinders by the subcontracted company he formed called Interface Technology.

Crown counsel Shade Subair was unable to prove that Knight had purposefully deceived Bermuda Gas by setting up Interface Technology and trading with his place of employment in order to overcharge Bermuda Gas.

Mr. Francis said: ?The Crown however has pointed strongly to the obvious, and to some extent admitted, deception of this accused, who set up a business to trade with his employer, with the result that he was in the position where he had to oversee, on behalf of this employer, what his own business was doing for the employer.?

During the trial defence lawyer Mark Pettingill pointed to the fact that Knight had admitted he did not tell his employer that he was involved in the subcontracted company but said that was not what Knight was charged with.

The Crown had to ?prove, beyond doubt? that the work was not done by Interface Technology?s, Mr. Pettingill said, and that Knight had overcharged Bermuda Gas.

When the activity sheets were compared to the invoices there were obvious discrepancies. But Knight said he did not rely completely on the activity sheets but also used his ?little black book? that contained figures he received over the phone from the supervisor of the work. Knight admitted that he threw away his book. Work done by some employees was also not always accounted for.

?It is admitted that there were workers for which there seems to be no activity sheets and also there was at least one worker, a Mr. Amaral, who worked for at least three months, but only one week of work by him is recorded in the activity sheets,? Mr. Francis said.

?I do not see how I can be sure that there was wilful overcharging going on, where any of these charges are concerned, because these charges are based only on was in the activity sheets.?

It was obvious that the work had been completed because, Mr. Francis said, there would be a pileup of gas tanks that were not refurbished.

?Giving as I must, therefore the benefit of the doubt to the accused, I find the case not proved and I find him not guilty,? Mr. Francis said.

Mr. Pettingill said he was pleased with the outcome, saying: ?It was justified.?