Millionaire City executive who dodged £43,000 in train fares unmasked

Jonathan Burrows, 44, should have paid £21.50 for commute, but got away with paying £7.20 over period of five years

theguardian.com, Martin Williams, Saturday 2 August 2014

Southeastern railway kept Jonathan Burrows' identity quiet after he reimbursed
them promptly. Photograph: Johnny Green/PA

A millionaire City executive who dodged £43,000 in train fares and hoped to avoid prosecution has been unmasked.

Jonathan Burrows, 44, tried to keep his anonymity by reimbursing Southeastern railways within three days of being caught. His identity has been revealed, however, after an investigation by British Transport police that was triggered after the story first broke in April.

The investment executive is thought to be Britain's biggest fare dodger, after repeatedly exploiting a loophole in the Oyster card system on his daily commute to London.

His commute from his East Sussex home should have cost him £21.50, but Burrows, who earns up to £1m and owns two country mansions worth £4m, managed to pay just £7.20 over a period of five years.

When he was eventually caught in November, he told Southeastern he wanted his name kept secret because of the impact the scandal could have on his job, according to the Daily Mail.

But when British Transport police found out that Southeastern had let Burrows off quietly it launched a criminal investigation, which is ongoing.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also investigated Burrows over concerns that he could be unsuitable for working in the City. Last week he was forced to tell his managers at BlackRock that the regulator was investigating. He was suspended immediately from his job and eventually resigned.

Jonathan Mullen, a spokesman for BlackRock, said: "Jonathan Burrows has left BlackRock. What he is alleged to have done is totally contrary to our values and principles."

An FCA spokesman said that their investigation had been dropped following Burrows's resignation, but added that past misconduct is taken into consideration when people apply for fresh authorisation. It said: "That doesn't have to be a criminal record. It can be anything that calls into question someone's fitness and propriety to work in the industry."

Burrows could not be contacted for comment. Asked about the case by the Mail, he reportedly said: "Dunno what you're talking about."