Fraud trial probes how one civil servant allegedly held eight public sector jobs at once
Kashim Chowdhury told a jury he was “surprised” to be charged with fraud after allegedly collecting salaries from multiple public sector employers while working overlapping jobs across government. The case, heard at Southwark Crown Court, revolves around whether his silence about those jobs amounted to dishonesty or whether he genuinely believed his flexible working arrangements made the overlap permissible.
Chowdhury, 55, from east London, denies nine counts of fraud. Prosecutors allege he earned more than £284,000 by juggling eight overlapping public sector roles between 2020 and 2023 while being contractually obliged to work full time for each employer. The case reaches well beyond payroll disputes. It raises a sharper question about how remote work, sick leave and loosely documented arrangements can obscure ordinary employer oversight.
In court, Chowdhury said he had not been dishonest in failing to tell employers that he held other government jobs. “At that time I was just on auto pilot, I was like a robot, I was not thinking clearly,” he said. Those words were offered as explanation for his conduct, but they also point to the central issue in the trial: whether his conduct reflected confusion and overload, or calculated concealment.
Sick leave, remote work and the claim that the system never caught up
The prosecution says Chowdhury began working for the Home Office in March 2023 while still under contract to work full time for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the UK Health Security Agency, the Department for Business and Trade and the Food Standards Agency. The court also heard that he started the Home Office job while on sick leave from three other posts.
A striking detail emerged from the hours involved. In May 2023, Chowdhury was contracted to work 183 hours a week, more than the number of hours in seven days. Even without any embellishment, the arithmetic is startling. Such a schedule would leave almost no room for sleep, travel, family responsibilities or recovery from illness, which is why the case has drawn attention far beyond the courtroom.
Chowdhury told the jury that his work was project-based or output-based and that he had agreed with employers, “informally,” to work flexibly through text messages. He said the phones used to send those texts had gone missing when investigators searched his home. The claim matters because the prosecution’s allegation depends in part on proving that any flexibility was not a blanket permission to hold multiple full-time roles at once.
He also said he coped by starting work at 07:00 on Saturdays and Sundays and not finishing until 20:00 or 21:00. Asked whether that was too much, he replied: “I was house bound, I was looking after my mum.” The jury will have to decide whether those pressures explain the pattern of work or merely describe the circumstances in which the alleged deception took place.
The dispute over illness, support and what employers were told
The court heard that Chowdhury told employers he was the sole carer for his elderly mother, and prosecutors allege he exploited that position to keep the overlapping jobs hidden. Much of the case turns on communication: what was disclosed, what was omitted, and how much employers knew about his other commitments.
Lucy Organ, prosecuting, pressed him on the apparent contradiction between sick leave and starting another role. “If you were really sick for work, how were you able to start your work at the Home Office?” she asked. Chowdhury replied: “I did not want this job at the Home Office, I was told there would be adequate support and I could work whatever hours I wanted to work.”
He was also questioned about why he did not submit a sick note to the Home Office. The suggestion put to him was blunt: “You were using these sick notes to be able to cope. It was all too much wasn’t it?” Chowdhury rejected that account and said: “I wanted to carry on working.”
A separate line of evidence concerned a video call with his UKHSA line manager, Aleesha Adams, in May 2023 to discuss his sick leave. Adams previously told the court she was surprised to see him wearing white make-up, saying his appearance did not match what she had expected and that the make-up appeared to be coming off during the meeting. Chowdhury denied wearing make-up at all, calling the allegation “a smear.” He said he had anxiety and depression at the time and had already submitted a sick note.
The evidence is messy, but the underlying issue is simple. Employers are being asked to account for a case in which remote work, self-reported illness and fragmented oversight may have allowed one employee to maintain overlapping posts for years. The trial continues, and the jury will decide whether the paperwork failed, or whether the defendant knowingly crossed a legal line while relying on the cover of remote employment.