Could I Be Prosecuted For Fraud

M_Thomson

kenshaz wrote:

and they deserved it,never make incorrect assumptions,is that a crime

Are you on the whiskey again? You quoted your own post.

kenshaz

:wall: :wall: :whistle:
again never make incorrect assumptions

La_Tristesse_Durera

kenshaz wrote:

Sleep tight in your telephone box BT-man and M Thomson the warmth of human kindness will keep you cosy,invite all your friends around have a party ,plenty of room for them all. :rolleyes:

Brilliant response by Kerryhoney,a touch of class,certainly brought them to heel,respect

BT man & M Thomson are the same person anyway!!!

kenshaz

kerryhoney wrote:

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

incorrect assumptions

An excellent response Kerryhoney,and you know the law,what is the situation in respect to incorrect allegations?

kenshaz

La_Tristesse_Durera wrote:

BT man & M Thomson are the same person anyway!!!

of course that explains,more room in the telephone box

wigginsmum

kenshaz wrote:

and you know the law,what is the situation in respect to incorrect allegations?

Indeed ... but I got slammed for objecting to being called a fraudster on this thread. Double-standards.

kenshaz

kerryhoney wrote:

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

This is the best post on this thread,correct ,but sensitive

BT_man

La_Tristesse_Durera wrote:

BT man & M Thomson are the same person anyway!!!

Don't be so ridiculous.:rolleyes:

kenshaz

kerryhoney wrote:

It's not theft by finding if you make all reasonable enquiries to find out who the owner of the relevant property is. In the example of a £1 coin this would not be hard to do. With a mobile phone there are many more reasonable enquiries that would be expected of you.....Sorry to be so pedantic Jess!

As for Mr BT Man, if I misunderstood your post then my apologies but it read: "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 that was in response to my post.

Kerry

Wigginsmum,this is the post

Thriftylady

Some posters on this thread have mentioned the concept of a 'victimless crime'. I don't really believe there is such a thing. Ironically, the person who lies on a loan or credit card application is the one who stands to suffer the most - there would be no need to lie if they could genuinely afford to pay back the money they are trying to borrow. Thats not to excuse the fact that lies are lies and fraud is fraud. Many people 'fall on hard times' but don't resort to fraud.

Like other posters here, I wish the OP well in trying to sort things out as they clearly genuinely want to resolve this.