A married couple who used fraud to fuel their successful careers as property developers have failed to stop the state seizing £448,000 worth of their assets - including their home.

Michael John Creamer and Anita Creamer, both 50, made a fortune by buying and doing up a string of houses over a 12-year period.

But they lied to mortgage companies about their income and circumstances in order to obtain the loans on which their business was built.

The couple, of Penmaen Road in Conwy, were both convicted of conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud at Mold Crown Court in December 2011.

Mrs Creamer was sentenced to two years in jail and Mr Creamer, who was also convicted of offences relating to credit card fraud, was given four years and two months.

The pair were also hit with confiscation orders, designed to allow the state to claw back the benefit they gained from their illegal activity.

Mr Creamer was ordered to pay  £219,000 and Mrs Creamer £229,000 - a total of more than £440,000.

Today they asked Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Holgate, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, to reduce the amount they must pay back.

The court heard that the assets the confiscation order was based on were the couple's matrimonial home and another property that remained from their portfolio.

The couple argued today that the matrimonial home was only in one of their names and ought not to have been counted as an asset available to both of them.

It was also said that the other house ought not to have been counted as their property, as it was held in trust for their children.

But Lord Justice Davis refused their application saying they were two years out of time to appeal the orders, and in any case had consented to them being made.

The couple's lawyers claimed that ignorance of the law had caused them to consent to the orders and that fresh evidence was now available.

Rejecting their appeals, however, Lord Justice Davis said there was evidence that the "purported trust" in relation to one of the houses "was a sham or became a sham".

He also said that the pair had had a chance to put forward any evidence at an earlier stage and would not be allowed to do so now.

"Enough is enough here," the appeal judge concluded.