CONVICTED (2026) | backyard breeder and bogus pet rescue owner Oaveed ‘Obi’ Rahman, born 7 August 1999, previously of Hope Road, Crays Hill, Billericay CM11 2XS and with strong family links to Walthamstow, London – for extreme animal cruelty and fraud.

In one of the most disturbing animal cruelty cases to shake the UK in recent times, Oaveed Rahman, who went by the nickname ‘Obi’. admitted causing unnecessary suffering to almost two dozen animals found starved and horrifically neglected at the Crays Hill premises of his fake rehoming charity, Save a Paw UK (SAP).

The decomposing remains of a further 41 dogs were discovered at the site but father-of-two Rahman was only prosecuted in relation to the surviving animals.

Microchips were found at the scene but officers have been unable to trace the dogs’ owners from them.

It is likely that the owners of many of the deceased dogs will never be identified.

At the time of writing, between 80 and 100 dogs that have passed through the doors of SAP remain unaccounted for. Sadly many are now presumed dead following months of fruitless appeals by heartbroken owners for information on their whereabouts.

Rahman’s conviction followed an investigation led by Essex Police and supported by Basildon Council, and the RSPCA.

Rahman first came to the attention of Essex Police in April 2025 after neighbours and passers-by contacted them with welfare concerns for the animals being kept at Save a Paw UK. Some locals reported hearing whining and crying coming from the dogs.

Action Fraud were also involved because Rahman had taken thousands of pounds from people who left him their pets when they were unable to continue looking after them.

He had promised to stay in touch with them to let them know how the animals were doing but would then become difficult to contact or would block them on social media.

Detectives gathered intelligence and on 13 May 2025 they raided the property which also served as the family home of Rahman, his Hungarian wife Greta Rahman née Greta Csikos*, and their two young children.

Twenty-one live dogs and a kitten were found confined in small, unsanitary spaces without water, food, bedding or adequate living conditions.

Pens and cages were covered in faeces and surviving dogs were severely underweight but were tormented by the fact that they could smell open bags of food nearby but were unable to get to them.

One pet was so traumatised he was no longer able to bark.

All showed clear signs of sustained suffering, likely lasting weeks or months.

Then the remains of 37 animals were found in bins, outbuildings and gardens. The bodies were riddled with maggots and the site was also infested with rats.

Four more deceased dogs were found during a follow-up visit by police on 4 June when an outbuilding was dismantled. Some animals were underground.

The dead animals were so badly decomposed that post-mortem examination could not be carried out.

Eyewitness accounts say that many of the dogs had been beaten to death and their remains dismembered and burnt, but this was not confirmed in court.

Critics also fear scores of other animals may have died there – including exotic creatures such as marmoset monkeys and a llama which he posted about online – as they remain unaccounted for.

Three of the rescued dogs were so ill they had to be euthanised, and one poodle lost her sight.

Prosecution by the CPS followed a complex multi-agency investigation. While initially denying the charges, Rahman ultimately admitted his guilt in return for the charges against his wife being dropped.

On 20 February 2026 he appeared by video link from HMP Chelmsford for sentencing. The hearing was presided over by Judge Richard Conley.

The court was told that Rahmanhad advertised his rehoming and training services for his unregistered charity on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

In a statement read to the court by prosecutor Tom Godfrey, Amy Cooper, a vet called to the scene with police, said as soon as she left her vehicle she was met with a “hideous smell” despite parking 40 metres away from the premises.

Mrs Cooper continued: “It became apparent that the smell was that of decaying, putrefying flesh.”

She wrote that the conditions at Rahman’s property were “the most horrendous thing I had ever seen… For any human or other animal to have been kept in or around this is unthinkable.”

In an outbuilding, she saw “three fetid, large dog carcases.”

In another location, she observed “a mass of fur with a collar”.

Some rooms were “piled full of” dead dogs, riddled with maggots. Rats were scurrying around.

“It was a sight that brought me to tears,” she wrote.

She said the dogs kept in pens would have faced “mental turmoil” as there were open bags of food in the property which they could not access.

Mr Godfrey told the court: “Rahman made the decision to house these dogs in inhumane conditions… whether this was some satisfaction from the power that he was able to exert over these dogs is a matter for your honour, but it is difficult to see why else Rahman would house the live dogs with the deceased dogs.”

Rahman was also charged with 11 counts of fraud by false representation.

Setting out the fraud case, Mr Godfrey said that Rahman had operated under the false pretext of a dog rehoming charity,

His frauds were perpetrated by “deceiving individuals into surrendering their dogs, often with a payment, with assurances that the dogs would be rehoused and rehabilitated.”

Some of these dogs “were subsequently found deceased at Mr Rahman’s home address.”

In mtigation, Molly Pinkus told the court her client had “expressed remorse over his crimes”.

This assertion was met with groans and laughter from some spectators, prompting an admonishment from the judge not to interrupt.

“He wishes to express his apologies to all concerned for the offences to which he has pleaded guilty,” she continued.

She said he suffers from “social and psychiatric conditions”, including anxiety, depression and neurodevelopmental issues.

He is currently on medication, she said, but has in the past been “industrious” and “hard-working”, with prior jobs in “estate agency and the hotel industry”.

Miss Pinkus said Rahman had a genuine “wish to help and look after dogs”.

“He wanted to assist dogs – particularly those dogs which needed specific assistance,” she says.

“Mr Rahman had a genuine desire and wish and did successfully treat, retrain and, I think, rehome a number of animals.”

“Well, that’s what he says,” replied Judge Conley. “But I haven’t seen any evidence of that… You would think if that was true, he would be able to back that up.”

The judge said none of the reports seem to get to the bottom of Rahman’s motivation for what has happened.

“I can’t make sense of it,” he said.

Sentencing Rahman, Judge Richard Conley told him he had committed an ‘act of betrayal of epic proportion that has devastated many lives’. He had used “personal charm and persuasion” to dupe his victims, supported by “numerous online positive reviews”, but was in fact “callous” and “barbaric”, inflicting “cruelty and neglect”.

“All of them endured unbearable pain, misery and torment,” he said of the animals.

They “lived out what was left of their short lives in abject misery.”

Some of the dogs that had starved to death were muzzled, said the judge.

Judge Conley said the details of what was found at Rahman’s compound are so “utterly harrowing” that they “reduced many present to tears” when described in court.

“It would have been so glaringly obvious that to keep dogs in those conditions, without food, water, exercise, sanitation, in the presence of other dead and dying dogs, with no stimulation, no comfort – that went beyond mere neglect,” says the judge.

“That constituted acts of cruelty

Judge Conley said Rahman had “numerous advantages” in his early life, with a well-off, supportive family that sent him to private school.

He said he had found it “almost impossible” to divine a motive for Rahman’s actions.

He is “resigned to the conclusion that this is something that will forever remain a mystery to me and perhaps even to you. Some behaviour simply defies rational explanation.”

As the case concluded a woman in the gallery shouted: “I hope you die in there, you bastard! I hope you rot in there, you dirty bastard!”

Rahman also admitted owning a banned XL bully dog, for which he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

Sentencing | 38 months in prison for animal cruelty, plus 22 months consecutive for the frauds – a total sentence of five years. Indefinite ban on owning cats or dogs, but with a provision that after 15 years he can apply to lift it, requiring him to prove he is a fit and proper person.

Mirror
BBC News
Daily Mail

---

Greta Csikos

*Rahman’s wife Greta Csikos, who lived with him on the site in Hope Road, was initially charged with causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and failing to ensure animal welfare. She entered a ‘not guilty’ plea in October 2025.

After Rahman changed his plea to guilty, prosecutors decided to acquit Csikos. The judge confirmed the case against her would lie on file.

According to news reports, Csikos is now living in Sinclair Road, Chingford, East London.

---

Rahman’s Alleged “Right Hand Man”: arrested but never charged

It was reported that “a 38-year-old man of no fixed address” was arrested alongside Rahman.

Believed to be the individual pictured (possibly named Costi and the brother of Greta Csikos), he faced charges of fraud as well as animal cruelty but a few days after his arrest, a police media release said he would “face no further action”.

Anecdotal information on social media suggested ‘Costi’ admitted he had killed dogs at SAP on Rahman’s bidding. This information must be treated as uncorroborated and untested in court.