Two men duped elderly residents in St Helens into paying upfront for building and glazing work, which they never carried out, Liverpool Crown Court heard.
But because of a brain injury to a defendant, the judge's sentencing powers for him were limited, despite some offences committed after the brain injury took place.
In a case brought by Halton Borough Council, Keith Gilbert, aged 39, of Newmore Lane, Sandymoor and Mark Miles, aged 48, of Greenbridge Close, Castlefields, appeared earlier this month.
Many of the residents targeted lived in St Helens.
The prosecution alleged the pair had been involved in Northwest UPVC which carried out roofing, glazing and general building works in the Merseyside and North Cheshire area.
The business used canvassers to cold-call to generate leads and then Mark Miles would visit, negotiate a price and take a cash deposit.
A number of often elderly customers were duped into believing that by paying upfront their building work would be carried out within days.
In reality once the money was paid they would never see it again.
Keith Gilbert pleaded guilty to acquiring criminal property, an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Mr Gilbert will be sentenced on the Monday 10 July.
The proceedings against Miles were conducted under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 following a finding on the 24 April that Mr Miles was unfit to plead following a brain injury in late January 2015.
Mr Owen Edwards, Counsel for the Prosecution, explained to the jury ‘This did not prevent him from continuing with his dishonest dealing but it has contributed to a situation in law in which he has been found to be unfit to plead,"
A Finding of Facts hearing was held and the jury was presented with evidence from 11 consumers who had been duped into parting with significant amounts of cash, totalling £13,890, before work started.
Mr Edwards explained: "This isn’t a case of a builder taking on too much work and hoping that he can get around to completing a job, this was a specific pattern of ensuring that as much cash as possible would be paid upfront for jobs that were never likely to be completed. In other words it was a scam."
Witnesses provided evidence of how they were given a string of excuses for why work hadn’t started and some were even given promises of refunds that didn’t materialise.
All eleven consumers explained that contacting Mr Miles became increasingly difficult with phone calls not being answered and letters not responded to.
Some witnesses spoke about how, when they used a different phone so that he didn’t recognise their number, Mr Miles had answered the call.
On Thursday 8 June the jury reached a unanimous verdict that Mark Miles had done the acts alleged: knowingly carried on a business for a fraudulent purpose and 11 counts of dishonestly making a false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
The judge’s sentencing powers were restricted because the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 allows for only three possibilities: a hospital order, a supervision order or an absolute discharge.
Mark Miles was sentenced to a two year supervision order – the maximum possible in such circumstances.