Charles Ingram denies all the charges

Charles Ingram, 39, of Easterton, Wiltshire, denied seven charges of deception at the trial at Bournemouth Crown Court.

At the start of Monday's hearing, Judge Samuel Wiggs told the jury they would almost certainly recognise Mr Ingram from the Millionaire case, but said it was "vital" they try him "only on the allegations he faces in this court".

Christopher Parker, prosecuting, told the jury that Mr Ingram had taken two consecutive insurance policies with two different companies and in both cases had dishonestly failed to say he had made claims against a previous home contents policy.

'Deceptions'

He said when applying for a policy with Zurich Municipal in 1997, Mr Ingram failed to declare that he had made four claims in the proceeding three years when requested to do so on his application.

This was an offence because the failure to declare these claims was deemed to have been done dishonestly, Mr Parker told the court.

Mr Ingram was initially insured by the Norwich Union between the years 1991 and 1997, during which period he made seven claims, the court heard.

Mr Parker said he then made a further four claims under his new policy with Zurich Municipal, which are deemed to be deceptions because the initial policy was fraudulently obtained.

'Meticulous records'

But Mr Parker added that there was no suggestion that the claims were not to cover genuine losses.

The court heard how at the end of the Zurich Municipal policy, Mr Ingram took out a policy with Direct Line between July 2001 and July 2002, and again failed to declare the four claims with Zurich Municipal which had occurred in the preceding three years.

Under the Direct Line policy, Mr Ingram claimed the sum of �30,000 on 10 August 2001 to cover the cost of a burglary, Mr Parker said.

The court heard that Mr Ingram had meticulously logged all of his insurance claims on his home computer.

But when interviewed by police, Mr Ingram said he had not declared some of the insurance claims because they were "highly forgettable items", the court heard.

Mr Parker said the defendant had accessed the list on his PC only days before switching insurance companies.

'Publicity'

He also told the court that the number of claims made by Mr Ingram was not unusual as he and his family had often had to move home due to their Army lifestyle.

Mr Ingram was arrested in October 2001 when loss adjusters and insurance agents looked into his claim history following his claim for a burglary.

Earlier, referring to Mr Ingram's notoriety, Mr Wiggs had told the jury: "Although plainly none of you know the defendant, most of you, if not all of you, will know of him and you may recognise him from the publicity there was over the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? case.

"It's inevitable because there was so much publicity you will realise who you are dealing with."

Mr Wiggs allowed Mr Ingram to sit with his solicitor instead of in the dock throughout the proceedings.