MBNA slammed by Judge !

Rafter

exel1966 wrote: »

I think the saddest part of this case is ;-

'admitted fraud and was conditionally discharged for two years. He was ordered to pay £150 prosecution costs.

What kind of deterrent is that ? As per usual, a slap on the wrist, a ticking off ! It's no wonder there are so many people who think nothing of spending someone elses money and having no intention to repay it.

Totally agree.

Athough I'm not an advocate of victorian 'debtors prisons' I think at the very least people who commit this kind of fraud should get the following:

Be declared bankrupt so they cannot get credit easily for 6 years. A fraud marker on their credit record for 10 years.

Receive an 'attachement to earnings/benefits order' for 3 years so they have to pay 10% of what they earn or are entitled too in benefits during that period'

Some sort of compulsory education about the impact of financial crime.

Maybe if people really thought that their earnings and ability to get a mortgage or loan for a long period would be impacted it would provide a better deterrent?

R.

~Brock~

Unfortunately finance fraud is not seen as a 'crime' by the police. It doesn't figure in their targets and therefore they are not interested. Give them a speeding motorist and they're well away......:rolleyes:

This is despite the fact that organised finance fraud is often the most visible indicated of a whole host of stuff going on behind the scenes (money laundering, drugs, extortion etc).

Given the current vogue for bashing the finance industry, I doubt that this is going to change for the better in the foreseeable future.