**Mother Ordered to Repay Stolen £50,000 Daughters’ Inheritance or Face Extended Prison Term**
A woman previously described by a judge as “thoroughly dishonest” must return £50,000 she misappropriated from her daughters’ inheritance, or risk serving extra months behind bars. The shocking abuse of trust has also now put her partner’s house at risk, with a significant portion potentially to be seized in order to settle the debt.
Katherine Hill, once a trustee set to safeguard her daughters’ inheritance, was found guilty of fraud earlier this year at Swansea Crown Court. The inheritance, left to the teenagers by their late grandmother Margaret Hill, was intended for their benefit once they turned 25. Instead, in the span of a single year, the funds disappeared from their account through a systematic series of large cash withdrawals.
Court proceedings revealed that Ms Hill, a former bank employee, persuaded her elderly father, Gerald Hill, to assist her in extracting the funds. Both denied any wrongdoing, claiming ignorance of the transactions in question; Katherine Hill alleged it was her 93-year-old father who withdrew the money, a claim he supported in court. Nonetheless, after hearing evidence, a jury convicted both of their roles in perpetrating a deliberate deception.
According to the account presented to the court, the £50,000 was originally placed into a Barclays Everyday Saver account, despite explicit advice from solicitors and financial professionals that more suitable investment arrangements should have been made. The money was siphoned off in several transactions—one single withdrawal amounted to £15,000—at the Barclays branch near Swansea Enterprise Park, where Katherine Hill worked only steps away at the neighbouring Lloyds branch.
The fraud came to light after one daughter requested her share of the money in advance for a house deposit—a provision allowed by the terms of the inheritance if agreed by the trustees. Instead, her request triggered scrutiny, quickly unravelling the elaborate deception.
At sentencing, the judge condemned Katherine Hill for exploiting her daughters’ inheritance out of spite, suggesting it was motivated in part by the daughters’ decision to live with their father following a marital breakdown. He likened her misuse of the money to wielding a “weapon” against her own children, describing the conduct as disgraceful. Gerald Hill, while regarded as less culpable, was nevertheless said to have allowed himself to be used as a patsy, though the judge felt he had acted in a “muddled” effort to support his daughter.
Katherine Hill received a custodial sentence of 30 months, while her father’s 12-month jail term was suspended for 18 months. Following the convictions, investigators scoured bank records and assets to determine the location of the missing funds and whether any assets could be seized to provide restitution for the daughters.
Particular attention was paid to the house in Alltwen, where Hill resided with her partner, Philip Lloyd. Evidence presented in court showed that mortgage payments between March 2017 and June 2024—totalling £36,000—had come exclusively from Hill’s bank account, raising questions about her financial interest in the property. While Mr Lloyd, a self-employed window cleaner, insisted that all funds used were his and that the property belonged solely to him, prosecutors dismissed their explanation as implausible.
The judge was unconvinced by their denials, concluding that Katherine Hill had acquired a significant interest—set at 40%—in the house. He further asserted that both Hill and Lloyd had benefited from the fraud, determining they had jointly shared the stolen funds.
A confiscation order for £50,000 was imposed on Katherine Hill, granting her three months to pay or face a further six months’ imprisonment. A separate order for £6,000 was placed on Gerald Hill, with the warning of a three-month custodial sentence for default. The recovered funds are to be returned to the daughters as compensation for the betrayal they suffered.
In a broader sense, this case lays bare not only the emotional devastation wrought by financial betrayal within families, but also highlights the significant legal risks to anyone complicit—directly or indirectly—in such crimes. As the fallout continues to reverberate, attention now turns to the methods by which the courts and investigators will ensure the stolen inheritance is rightfully restored.