Could I Be Prosecuted For Fraud

M_Thomson

BT_man wrote:

I bow down to thou superior post count. You must be right and I must be wrong. Thine must take discredit as thy digits are far lower than thou.:rotfl:

BT Man you have a higher thanks ratio for the amount of posts you have made than Kenshaz.

kerryhoney

Without wanting to concern you too much, and without reading all the other replies, with regard to your liability for fraud:

The offence comes under Theft Act 1968 (section 16 (2) (b). The general meaning is that if a person by any deception (ie lying) dishonestly obtains a pecuniary advantage (which includes eg being allowed to borrow by way of overdraft or receiving an improvement on terms) then they are guilty of committing the offence.

However (and this is a big however) in order for the police to even get involved the creditors will have to contact them. If you arrange payments then this (I would hope!) would be unlikely to follow on. However, you should be aware that if you tell your creditors that you lied and they report it to the police (and provide evidence and witness statements to this effect) then the police will investigate. This will not be hard for them to do as they can make applications to receive statements on your accounts. They will write to the Land Registry to see who owns your house etc and it would not be a hard case to prove. The Crown Prosecution Service would then have to decide whether its in the public interest to prosecute you and whether, on the balance of probabilities, they would be likely to succeed in prosecution. If you don't have a criminal record then this is a matter which the police can give an adult caution for (albeit if they deem that the matter is too serious then this could affect a gravity score and err towards the side of prosecution instead).

Should it get to this nasty stage and you actually get charged with the offence (IMHO, unlikely) then at court you will have a pretty good defence. You may get found guilty on the basis that the offence has been committed but there are such mitigating factors (which would also help the police to decide that you were eligilble for a caution and not actually get prosecuted in the first place) that I believe that it is unlikely you would receive a prison sentence. For example, the only reason the circumstances came to the police attention was because you were honest and came forward to your creditors, you were in a serious situation and were trying to correct it by borrowing more money to pay off others, you have been cooperative and honest throughout police investigation etc, first offence.

I know that this all sounds pretty serious but I honestly don't think that it will get to this point.

Just to cover my own !!!, all the information above is merely my opinion and has no legal value!

As my mum always says, honesty is the best policy and you would hope that this wouldn't result in you being penalised.

Hope this helps,

Kerry

BT_man

Oh dear,
I think I'll just let these fraudsters congratulate each other on defrauding the bank's, the system, probably the welfare state and any other way they can think of gaining money for nothing. I will just carry on going to work and not spending money that I have not earnt. Perhaps I am the mug afterall..

Hello

M_Thomson wrote:

What a bunch of nonsense. Please take me to wherever you found this out.

Nope, can't. I found it when I was at college. I can tell you how it came about though. Queen Elizabeth 1 recalled all the silver coins (I think it was just silver) to change to her image. She didn't want any previous monarchs depicted. The only way to get all the coins in was to ensure they were in circulation and not under ones bed. This law has never been retracted.

Maybe old, but it is still current.

kerryhoney

BT Man,

Don't think you should really be calling people fraudsters without knowing everything about them. Or assume that they are congratulating each other. Applying legislation and the criminal justice procedure's is FACT. It is that that you should get upset about. Please be a little sensitive to who you are calling a fraudster.

Kerry

M_Thomson

kerryhoney wrote:

BT Man,

Don't think you should really be calling people fraudsters without knowing everything about them. Or assume that they are congratulating each other. Applying legislation and the criminal justice procedure's is FACT. It is that that you should get upset about. Please be a little sensitive to who you are calling a fraudster.

Kerry

Kerry, if you read some of the posts there are quite a few posters who say this is nothing. It is a victimless crime. Like BT Man said, it is the honest majority who end up pay for this type of fraud.

kerryhoney

Picking money up from the street is a crime?! Errrr yeah right.

kerryhoney

Thomson,

I agree that it is the honest people that end up paying for this and I don't for one minute agree with what Up the creek, or anyone else has done, but became slightly annoyed to feel that I was being called a fraudster, that's all.

It is certainly something serious, that is why there has been specifiic legislation introduced to state that this actual act is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE! So it's obviously wrong! The fact that there is no true "victim" (unlike me who woke up this morning to find that some thieving b%stard this morning had stolen my bay tree from outside my front door!) just means that society are less likely to judge the individual than if the money had been obtained from a little old lady.

Kerry

Jesscat

This is classed as theft by finding! After all if someone dropped a mobile phone and you found it, you wouldnt dream of not handing it in, its the same thing regardless of value! Obviously dont believe for a second the police would be interested if you walked into a police station and wanted to hand in a £1 coin you'd found in the street!!! :rotfl:

BT_man

kerryhoney wrote:

Thomson,but became slightly annoyed to feel that I was being called a fraudster, that's all.
Kerry

I don't remember calling you a fraudster...?
The OP is though.