Possible £15 Maplin glitch

1984ReturnsForReal_2

vickym wrote: »

Quote taken from the link 1984ReturnsForReal - gave

"Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Criteria

SFO's criteria for taking on a case
By law we can investigate only those cases where there is evidence to show that serious or complex fraud, and corruption has taken place.
To determine the seriousness and complexity of a particular matter then it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions:


The key factors we consider before taking on a case:

• Does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?
• Is there a significant international dimension?
• Is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?
• Does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?
• Is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?

Serious and Complex: what do we look for?

In addition to the above criteria we look for factors such as:


Is it Serious?

• Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market
• Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud
• Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and government (local or central) or other public serving authorities

Is it Complex?

• Whether the case involves multiple countries
• Whether the evidential material to be obtained during the course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations (within the UK or in other countries)
• Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions - e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries
• Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysis

So judging by their criteria it would be highly unlikely SFO would get involved .

Also just to point out - when you added the code to the basket it added the freegift - there was no option to remove the discount only the option to remove the freegift.

Get a life.

Now go back up on the site & get the definition of fraud.

thommy

excellent last point vickym

1984ReturnsForReal_2

thommy wrote: »

excellent last point vickym

:rotfl:

.............

thommy

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Get a life.

Now go back up on the site & get the definition of fraud.

oh, no need for the get a life line.

you might find that vickym was just putting your libelous accusations into perspective;)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

thommy wrote: »

oh, no need for the get a life line.

you might find that vickym was just putting your libelous accusations into perspective;)

Sue me....


Anyone that done it has indeed committed fraud.

thommy

anyone that done it? you been watching 'the bill' too much guv!

anewman

If the item was really worth £14.99 and they can sell it at that price all day long, they have lost nothing when someone removes it from their basket.

singledaddy

1984etc - you are wrong.
Firstly, you seem confused about application of law and implementation of law. The police etc can only act on fraud on the request of a 'defrauded' party.
Secondly to say that "anyone that done it has indeed committed fraud" is a generalised statement and legally incorrect. The accepted defence to such claims is usually that "it is impossible to judge the intentions of all people in an unrelated group".
Thirdly, successful payment followed by delivery of goods is now accepted in law as a completed transaction.

If you want to quote legal precedent then I suggest that do more than cut and paste a few quotes off a few legal websites.

vickym

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Get a life.

Now go back up on the site & get the definition of fraud.

I am sorry that you took offense at my post. But in a way glad as you seem to be one hell of a negative, nasty & bullying type of person. People come on this thread to save a few quid. Some depend on saving a few quid to be able to afford little luxuries for their children for christmas. So stop with the attitude and find something worth while to do with your time.

There have been many glitches on this site too numerous to mention and to this date I am I not aware of one that has been investigated by the Serious Fraud Squad.

You obviously take pride in trying to belittle people however in this instance I am afraid you have been unsuccessful I have fought bigger fish than you including dealing with the Serious Fraud Squad on behalf of HM Customs & Excise as part of my work.

Goodnight.

thommy

singledaddy wrote: »

1984etc - you are wrong.
Firstly, you seem confused about application of law and implementation of law. The police etc can only act on fraud on the request of a 'defrauded' party.
Secondly to say that "anyone that done it has indeed committed fraud" is a generalised statement and legally incorrect. The accepted defence to such claims is usually that "it is impossible to judge the intentions of all people in an unrelated group".
Thirdly, successful payment followed by delivery of goods is now accepted in law as a completed transaction.

If you want to quote legal precedent then I suggest that do more than cut and paste a few quotes off a few legal websites.

thank you.