Jury told evidence points to 'clever and dishonest fraud'

Dr Emad Massoud (aged 52), a consultant surgeon, and his wife Gehan (aged 43), a nurse, have pleaded not guilty to intent to defraud the insurance companies by falsely pretending that Mrs Massoud had suffered breast cancer and that there was an obligation on them to settle serious illness claims.

The Massouds, of Woodview, Brownstown, Ratoath deny intent to defraud €685,658 from Scottish Provident Ltd on March 25, 2002 through having that amount made payable to Permanent TSB and €45,338 on February 22, 2002 from Lifetime Assurance Company Ltd by having that sum transferred to their account at the Bank of Ireland in Letterkenny, Co Donegal.

Judge Patrick McCartan in his charge to the jury of seven men and four women that even if they found Mr Massoud to be "pompous and self serving" when he took the stand in his own defence and even if they didn’t like him or believe him, if they thought what he said could be true they should acquit him and by definition his wife.

Mr McGinn said that the "ultimate issue" for the jury to decide was whether Mrs Massoud had breast cancer as she claimed.

He said that if the jury was satisfied that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that she did not have the disease they should convict both her and her husband but if it was convinced she was genuinely diagnosed with cancer the jury should acquit both accused.

Mr McGinn said certain aspects in the case were undisputed. These included: that 237 grammes of breast tissue sent to the histology laboratories in the Mater Hospital was found to be malignant; that Mrs Massoud’s mother had breast cancer at the same time as her; and that it was her husband who performed the surgery on Mrs Massoud and not Mr Mohamed Hilal as stated in the insurance claim forms.

He asked the jury to consider if Dr Massoud - "a man who thinks nothing about using another’s identity, a man who thinks nothing about breaking ethical rules laid down by the Medical Council and a man who ignores common practice in the surgery he performed on his wife" - should be trusted.

Mr McGinn suggested to the jury that the only surgery that had taken place on Mrs Massoud was the one that created the scar on her left breast and added that given the stakes were €700,000 "she may have been willing to undergo the pain of making such a mark".

He asked the jury to accept that Dr and Mrs Massoud were in this crime together. "He may have orchestrated it but she would have to have willingly participated," Mr McGinn said.

Mr John Peart SC (with Mr Charles Corcoran BL), for Dr Massoud submitted to the jury that all his client did wrong was to operate on his own wife but added that this action "does not offend the law".

Mr Peart said Dr Massoud had been "bursting" from the very beginning of the trial to give evidence.

"He has strongly denied any wrong doing. His wife had lobular cancer and he has been wrongly prosecuted and has been very anxious to prove his innocence."

Mr Peart said his client had asked him from the start to admit that he used the name of Mr Hilal as the surgeon on reports to the insurance company because it wasn’t acceptable in Ireland to operate on your own wife and in order to get a specimen from her breast analysed he had to use some other name.

He suggested to the jury that comparing the pathology report from Mrs Massoud’s mother in Egypt to her own from Ireland was "like saying that a white sliced pan is the same as a brown bread roll. They are both bread but you cannot turn one into the other."

Mr Peart asked the jury to consider that Doctor Mohamed Elsayed Attia, who claimed to have seen a tissue sample in the Massoud’s home shortly after he learned that Gehan’s mother had been diagnosed with cancer, had "an axe to grind and a motive to make this false allegation" which he said was "an ugly rumour and idle gossip".

"It’s easy for anyone to throw mud but it’s hard to clean it off and in this case there has been a lot of mud thrown," Mr Peart said. "He was raging because he believed my client had overcharged him in medical fees, so he told this story."

Mr Peart told the jury that Mr Hakem Elsaadany, whom Dr Attia claimed had brought the tissue sample from Egypt to Ireland, was "a reluctant witness" who was concerned about his status in this country but came to court and testified that Dr Attia’s account was wrong.

Mr Cormac O'Dulachain SC (with Mr Seamus Clarke BL), for Mrs Massoud said that Dr Massoud’s account was feasible and plausible. "The fact is, he is a surgeon, he has a clinic and it’s possible to carry out this kind of surgery under local anaesthetic."

He said the jury was expected to believe that Dr Attia - "the whistle blower" - saw a jar of human tissue in the Massoud’s home but couldn’t say where exactly he saw it and claimed there was no further discussion with the accused about it.

Mr O Dulachain said that Dr Attia then named Mr Elsaadany as a courier who brought this tissue sample to Ireland but never pointed out this "central character" to gardai and only gave his mobile number to Detective Sergeant Declan Daly, the prosecuting garda, earlier this month.

"The reason he did this is because you cannot believe a word, not a word, this man says."

Mr O Dulachain suggested that in this case the evidence did not knit together in any way that the jury could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs Massoud did not have cancer.

Mr O Dulachain added that in terms of Mrs Massoud’s own involvement, there was no evidence that she touched the tissue sample, looked at it, brought it to the Mater Hospital or analysed it and said there was also no evidence in the trial that the scar on her left breast was a superficial one or fake.

The trial resumes on Monday when the jury is expected to retire to begin its deliberations on day-15 of the hearing.