GCs PCs - DO NOT BUY FROM [Removed]

savemoney

[Name removed by Forum Team] must have the morning off today came on at just after 9 am today and seen on digispy at 11 am

yorksrabbit

Stephen_Webber wrote: »

No, the whole point of a limited company is that it's their liability that is limited. I don't believe the directors/owners of either a PLC or Ltd company can be held liable in any way for the company's debts, unlike a privately held company (e.g. sole trader). I may have this wrong, it was about 15 years since I studied it!

Hopefully no-one associated with GCPCs is counting on 'limited liability' provision.

Companies House investigations department (yes, it has one!) is pretty much on the ball where criminal scams are set up under the umbrella of limited companies.

Of course, whether GCPCs is such has yet to be proved.

If it is though, any director can be banned from holding any office for the next 15 years and the stripping away of a directorship leaves her / him / them liable to the financial wrath of creditors.

Not a happy prospect, really.

yorksrabbit

JamesGilmour wrote: »

When Simon Dovaston gets around to visiting the [Name removed by Forum Team] household, many forum members and victims of the fraud would be interested if the following questions could be raised:


5) Find out why the Nigerians have it in for [Name removed by Forum Team]

Many will have wondered about that.


:rotfl:

yorksrabbit

Dinah --

The T&Cs clearly breach consumer legislation re Unfair Terms but it's become obvious as this saga has unfolded that GCPCs may be at risk of facing judicial sanction in respect of criminal rather than civil issues. The involvement of the police at this (relatively) early stage indicates the seriousness. GCPCs problems with Unfair Terms may turn out to be the least of its problems. We shall see.

Bamber19

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Going from memory you're about right. IIRC Mr [Name removed by Forum Team] may have to pay a nominal amount (could be just £1) to wind-up the company but that is his only liability - i.e. limited liability.

Dependant upon how a company has been run, if their actions have been fraudulent etc. a court can "lift the veil of incorporation" in order to hold the members of the company financially liable for the debts of the company. Not really something i'd be banking on, however, over on the criminal side of the law (as opposed to civil) I can't see the [Name removed by Forum Team] hiding behind the company if there are accusations of fraud.

JamesGilmour

Bamber19 wrote: »

Dependant upon how a company has been run, if their actions have been fraudulent etc. a court can "lift the veil of incorporation" in order to hold the members of the company financially liable for the debts of the company. Not really something i'd be banking on, however, over on the criminal side of the law (as opposed to civil) I can't see the [Name removed by Forum Team] hiding behind the company if there are accusations of fraud.

I spoke to a barrister today about this very issue: the protection that limited liability gives you is lifted if there is criminal conduct on the part of Director or Directors; that would mean that [Name removed by Forum Team] snr. may become personally liability for the cost the State incurs in bringing the prosecution: which easily goes beyond six figures.

tom_devon

Why not move the action to [Name removed by Forum Team] dad, if it hasnt been already, as it seems his name is mentioned in all the places of importance, ie on the cc gateways.

Forget about the son, as if any alledged criminal activity was proven the father would be in a better place to pay fines, compensation etc. Im sure the limited company loophole wouldnt matter if he was found guilty.

yorksrabbit

dacouch wrote: »

If [Name removed by Forum Team] was not such a git I would almost feel sorry for him. You just know he is reading these threads and bricking himself. When I left school I got a job and learnt the ropes, [Name removed by Forum Team] is learning about the realities of life the hard way.

I don't feel sorry.

Reason?

The Internet is the single greatest step forward in liberty and democracy since the invention of the printing press.

It has demolished boundaries, erased horizons, enabled individuals to come together in ways of mutual support undreamt of even a mere two decades ago.

But there are those out there to whom it is just another means to an end.

Not for them any appreciation of the richness that the Internet truly is but instead, only an appetite for the riches it can bring to their grubby pockets.

Time will tell if [Name removed by Forum Team] fit into the above category.

I don't know.

But I do know that alarm bells have been rung and that it's therefore time for all who value the Internet to defend it -- and ourselves -- from any who may be seeking to turn it into yet another mugger's alley.

Whatever the outcome of this affair, the message needs to go out that when you scam me, you scam my sister, my brother, and everyone else in a global cyberspace family that's more than able to demonstrate that the 'Net can indeed bite back.

And bite back hard.

dacouch

I agree with you Yorksrabbit and I did not say I felt sorry for him.

I agree with your senterments about the internet and would add that the delicious irony of it all is the power of the internet and people power through this forum and being able to find information out soo easily will hopefully see justice done (I'm hoping for a lot more than a few detentions and writing 100 times "I must not be such a deceitful git")

Cleo_

Nex0 wrote: »

Seems I didn't take this thread seriously enough at the start.

Don't know if anyone has noticed but it seems all but the top link now don't work.

Perhaps hes now to busy try to sue the newspapers to help pay all his bills.

I believe if you read a few posts further down, someone corrected the links. They do work still..