Anthony Doyle was sentenced at Chester Crown Court in September 2006 with co-conspirator Karen Papworth, who was a print buyer alongside Doyle at Salford printer Doyle Quays.
The pair were accused of defrauding first the Martin Dawes Telecommunications Group from 1998-1999 and then BT Cellnet, which took it over from 1999 to the end of 2001.
They were convicted of dishonestly presenting deliberately inflated purchase orders and invoices for printing and reprographic work as if they represented genuine prices, and of dishonestly failing to disclose to the phone companies that their relationship was not an arms' length business relationship, in that Karen Papworth was receiving money and other financial benefits from Anthony Doyle.
Earlier this year a jury took only three hours to return unanimous guilty verdicts after a six-week trial on counts of joint conspiracy to defraud.
Around £1m was overcharged by Salford-based Doyle Quays for a total of 770 jobs worth £3.4m, according to analysis carried out on a snapshot of the transactions by an independent print broker, prosecutor Robin Spencer QC told the court in 2006.
However, Doyle, who has constantly appealed while inside, claimed his imprisonment was down to a flaw in the legal system.
Following his release, Doyle talked exclusively to PrintWeek about his sentence and constant attempts to overturn the charges.
He claimed to have documents proving his innocence, including several letters from accountants claiming the company's figures made it impossible for him to have overcharged by the amount claimed, which he allowed PrintWeek to view.
However, he said they were not allowed to be used as new evidence because they were available when the case was first heard.
Doyle now faces a race against time to prove his alleged innocence because he is due to appear at a Proceeds of Crime hearing on 2 June, where a confiscation order will be used to take back the £1m that he is alleged to have taken.
Doyle told PrintWeek: "I want my story to be heard because I think people in the print industry should be aware of the pitfalls of the legal system. I have proof that I was not guilty but it was not seen.
"I am writing to the criminal case review and have been constantly appealing and I have written to the judge a number of times, but I am constantly being told they won't acknowledge my evidence."
