The wife of former Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman has been accused of deceiving the High Court by not providing statements from a bank account in her name.

Ayesha Farid is in court over the ownership of a property in Bromley-By-Bow, which she claims to have a 74% stake in.

In the case at the High Court of Justice Chancery Division, chief master Matthew Marsh is looking at who is the true owner of 3 Grace Street - which is being rented out.

This follows a judgment by Richard Mawrey QC who, in April, found Mr Rahman guilty of electoral fraud and ordered the court fees of the four voters who took him to court be fully repaid.

ALSO ONLINE: The first day of the trial

However, Mr Rahman has not paid a penny of the estimated £500,000 owed.

Lutfur Rahman arrives at the High Court during the election fraud case in early 2015

Barrister Simon Johnson, who is representing the voters, has indicated that his clients want to be able to force the sale of 3 Grace Street to contribute towards the owed costs.

He says records show that Rahman is the “100% owner” of the property, but Mrs Farid has said she is a part-owner and has a beneficial interest.

ALSO ONLINE: The second day of the trial

Today Mrs Farid was accused of deceiving the court after she produced statements for an HSBC account she previously said was “not relevant” to disclose.

She had been asked to provide evidence of all accounts that Mr Rahman had paid into relating to the rental payments he received for 3 Grace Street.

Mr Rahman pays the mortgage costs for this property and all the rent comes into his account, but Mrs Farid claims she is the beneficiary as he pays her all the rental profit in cheques and cash.

She had produced statements for a Barclays account ahead of the trial, but when questioned about the payments not showing as much profit as she stated she received she said it could’ve gone into her HSBC account instead.

Grace Street in Bromley-by-Bow, which is where the property being fought over is situated

However, the HSBC statements provided by Mrs Farid’s side didn't include information the bank had provided to the claimants, which Mr Johnson said was “a deliberate attempt to deceive the court” and that she had closed her account in July to “hide evidence” instead of “early in 2015” like she claimed.

Representing Mrs Farid, Steven Fennell, said this was not a deliberate act and just a mistake in the rush to get the papers to the court.

During the final day of the trial in which both sides gave their summings up, Mrs Farid also took another swing at her husband after yesterday saying “he has brought shame on me, my family and children."

She said: “He has got me in this mess and I have to sort this out now.”

In his final statement Mr Johnson described Mrs Farid as “highly intelligent” and Mr Rahman as having been “positively unhelpful” in the case.

Three of the petitioners after it was announced Lutfur Rahman was found guilty of electoral fraud. Left to right; Andy Erlam, Angela Moffat and Azmal Hussein

Mr Fennel said in his closing statement this was a “simple case” and that Mrs Farid was “ a formidable lady and a very strong character.”

He added: “She gave clear evidence and wasn’t significantly shaken. She told the truth to the best of her knowledge about her husband’s bank statements.”

He also claimed the indiscrepancies between what she claimed she received in rental payments and what the claimants found was because money was paid through cash as well.

He said: “It was a long time ago - she answered to the best of her memory.

“She thought she got the payments from her husband of what was roughly owed. She can’t prove she received the whole of them.

“There is no set rule to what she would be paid and when - otherwise it would not be a marriage.”

In a brief mention of the shamed politician Mr Fennell said Mr Rahman was not in court because Mrs Farid had not wanted him there.

He said: “It was her decision to call him as a witness and she decided not to. She’s the only person who has a live claim to the property.

“If Mr Rahman had come to court the other side would quite properly have said he was someone that had been found to be wholly untruthful and that could’ve affected his case.”

Master Marsh disagreed with this, stating he could make his own mind up.

He could not indicate when his judgement would be delivered, adding “I will do it as soon as possible.”