TURF FRAUDS EXPOSED.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1364, 4 October 1883, Page 3

TURF FRAUDS EXPOSED.

BY “THE HERALD” DETECTIVE. (From The Sydney Herald, Sept, 1883).

Swindling Sweeps and the Sweeps who Swindle.

“ Keep your eye on the sweep promoters who are advertising consultations on the Mel* bourne Cup. Lievote your whole time and attention to mastering the modus operandi and noting their movements. Exposa the ‘Jflshy ’ ones and leave the others alone. Spare no expense, be sure of your faces, and hit out straight against the swindlers.” These were the head of the staff’s terse instructions to the writer last June, and merely premising that “Tho Herald” pro* prietary, in organising thia investigation, were actuated by no goody-goody principles as regards the suppression of sweeps, as sweeps—for squarely conducted) the sweep may afford fair and reasonable opportunities for speculation for those who like ventures of the kind—without further preface I.will lay before the readc s of “ The Herald " the results of my enquiries, which comprise startling disc’osures in connection with certain well advertised sweeps. My investigation has been prolonged, as the majority of the gentlemen whose movements I was “ told off” to take an absorbing interest in are naturally of slippery sensibilities, their acquirements in the way of scriptural knowledge probably having prompted them to “hide their light under a busheland this fact has occasioned me some difficulty in the matter of identification, the number of aristocratic aliases and addresses they have found it necessary to borrow, in their disinterested desire to do “ good by stealth, and blush to find it fame ” being creditable alike to their versatality and imagination. However, after three months “ fossicking ” around I now have the honor of a personal acquaintance, individually, with fourteen of these gentlemen, their habits, tastes, and idiosync/acies. Although my original intention was to classify the sweep projectors under three heads “Fair,” “Doubtful,” and “Fishy,” J have, after full enquiry, deemed it desirable to, fo? the present, confine myself to crooked sweeps, and the sweeps who run then..

Taking their own advertised programmes as an estimate £130,000 of the public money —and unfortunately, the earnings, for the most part of the hardworking community—passes through the hands, or rather the pockets, of bogus sweep-holders annually. This sum is probably exaggerated, as some of them do not half fill their consultations, but £50,000 is certainly within the mark, and I will now endeavor those of my readers who are of speculative propensities for some of the unknown gentlemen they trust so guilessly with their pounds, shillings, and pence. In doing this I shall not hesitate to call a spade a space.

Fraud No 1 “Orient,” whose consultation on th<’ Melbourne Cup, 1883, capital £20,000 in 10,000 shares at £2 each, is one of the bigest of these concerns. The truism that “Nothing Succeeds like Success ” is admirably exemplified in this gentleman’s career. A Foie with a Scotch surname) Mi “Orient,” landed in Melbourne from New Zealand in 1881, Shortly afterwards he commenced business in the Eastern portion of Bourke-street, in rather a different profession to the one he now adorns, only resembling it in one respect— it was a swindle.

Gentlemanly in appearance, tastefully tailored, and pleasantly persuasive in his broken English, the Polish Scotchman’s first venture in” Melbourne, appealing as it did more especially to ladies, ought to have been a success, but it “didn’t come off.” Simply because (not being a sweep) it was too palpably a fraud, and too impracticable for Victorians to bite, and the Marriage Insurance Society “ bust up.” In 1882, the bait was changed, and the line thrown out again, this time with a £20,000 Cup Consultation on the end of it. Advertising extensively, Mr “Orient’’has now worked up a big business throughout the colonies, at this time of the year receiving thirty, forty, yes, and sixty letters daily, each containing at least £l. But these missives are never delivered at the office as advertised ; that address is only necessary to prove the respectability of the concern. A box is retained at the Melbourne Post office, and the officials instructed to detain all letters addressed to “Orient” until called for i and in the prosecution of these investigations it has often afforded me much merriment to observe the unconcerned fashion in which, smoking a cigarette, “ Orient ” strollc along tho Post Office Piazza with his weather eye open for detectives, while his assistant g >es to the box-office with a black leather bag into which he rams ail enclosures c Idresaed to “ Orient ” and quietly departs. The two next meet in a bar parlor, where, if the haul has been good, they indulge in some “ Fiz,” and proceed to open the letters never by any chance taking them to the advertised addresses, this proceeding being attended with too much risk. The receipt is sent away next morning, and the client, possibly a servant girl who has invested a month’s savings, duly receives the acknowledgment and a numbered ticket, with the intimation that result slips will be posted after the drawing. In due course she gets the result, looks in vain for her number in the Prize List, and without for one moment losing her faith in “ Orient,” realises that she has lost her pound, r.nd probably sets to work to earn another, to invest similarly “ On the Champion,” •‘Orient’s” debut as a sweep promoter took place in January, 1882, when he announced that he purposed holding a £5OOO consultation in shares of £1 on the Australian Cup. In the following March he advertised that his sweep had filled with 5000 members.

Now, this, for an unknown individual, who had only arrived in Melbourne a few months previously, sounds slightly improbable, “ when it is well known that the oldest and most trusted of the Melbourne sweep holders has the greatest difficulty in filling one sweep on the Australian Cup with 2000 subscribers, while another gentleman, whose name is also rbjve suspicion, rarely obtains 1000 subteribers for the event.” As a matter of fact, “ Orient ” did not receive £lOO for investment in the sweep which he announced closed with £5OOO, and in squaring matters with his clients he either lost £4900, which again, to say the least, sounds a trifle improbable, or he did not draw the sweep at all, but sent out bogus result slips to the few subscribers who had been mad enough to send their pounds for investments. However, he anrou? ced that he had closed his Australian Cup sweep with £5OOO, and advertising this fact (?) extensively in connection with his next consultation “ £2OOO

—on the Melbourne Cup ” —he established agents in New Zealand, Tasmania, and New South Wales, and worked in probably £2OOO by Cup day, 1 832. (Certainly not more than £2OOO, arguing logically from the known fact that a Melbourne sweep holder who occupies a high niche in public confidence, and who also advertises extensively intercolonially, only succeeded in filling one £2OOO consultation). “Orient,” on this occasion, wl h that minute attention to accuracy in derail which is characteristic of

hie career, advertised that he closed with £14,122.

Now, two questions may very reasonably be asked in connection with these facts.

If Orient does not get as many subscribers as he advertised, how does he manage in disbursing the money he says he receives ? Or what becomes of the £14,122 which Orient acknowledges to have received on the Melbourne Cup, 1882 ? My answer to the query is that a bogus drawing takes place amongst his own crowd, and a few non-startrss —horses that have already been scratched —are proportioned out to those clients who have been good custom* era, or to those who would be most likely to advertise the fact.

To the second question my answer is—--11 Orient ” never received £14,000 or onefifth of it (until this year) and the lion’s share of what ha hud received has gone into his own pocket. Of “ Orient ”it must bo said that in one respect he is cuter than some of the other sweep swindlers, inasmuch as his advertise’ ments do not show on the face of. them that hie ventures must be swindles. To all appearance they are fair and above-board, which is more than can be said of some of the other sweeps with which I will deal in due time. This season the subject of this eulogistic little sketch has done wonderfully well, as a result of the announcement printed on the back of his prospectus to the effect that he disbursed the £14,122 over the last Cup.

But for this expose £4OOO would probably have passed through his hands in the next two months. Whether it will or not rests with the public, If, after my sketch of “ Orient’s ” career, the public like to trust him with their pounds, let them do so by all means. They will lose their money, and, what is more, having been warned, they will deserve to lose it. [To be continued in our neat.]