Benefit fraud - do i need a lawyer?

curlytop12

did your sister want you to hide her money in your account for some reason?maybe to assist her benefit claim?
is that how all this came to light?
maybe your depression clouded your judgement in helping her .
if you have the money in the bank now,why not just pay it in one lump sum?
you have admitted its not your money,this would show you are serious in taking responsibility.
good luck.

System

chigley wrote: »

I think the OP means they received an overpayment of Income Support of £16,000.00, not that they had over £16,000.00 in capital.

That said though, an overpayment of £16,000.00 is a lot of money, and of course, the fraud will have gone on for some time for such an amount to accrue, so it is therefore serious in the eyes of the Law.

Well I don't believe it. Nobody gets an over payment of £16000. The DWP are not stupid. So the OP must have been doing some thing illegal to get over paid THAT much. He may have been working and claiming benefits,had savings over £6000 and over £16000 and not told them.Both of which are illegal and is benefit fraud. Barbara.

marleyboy

You should get a lawyer, but I would prepare yourself a sentence if it can be proved you knowingly accumulated from a fraudulent claim.

Without doubt they will want it paying back, on top of which you will find it extremely difficult to claim any benefits in the future.

Definitely seek some legal advice, as you do still have some entitlements to a fair hearing, your going to want someone to represent you. Good Luck.

merlin68

He wasn't over paid by DWP, he kept some money in his bank account, that was his sisters. Then got an inheritance.

Emmzi

is OP Father Ted?

"It was just resting in my account.."

System

merlin68 wrote: »

He wasn't over paid by DWP, he kept some money in his bank account, that was his sisters. Then got an inheritance.

Well if he had been honest and told the DWP about his savings being over £6000 and well over £16000.Then he would not now be facing charges of DSS fraud and a possible prison sentence if convicted. Barbara.

chigley

annbarbs wrote: »

Well I don't believe it. Nobody gets an over payment of £16000. The DWP are not stupid. So the OP must have been doing some thing illegal to get over paid THAT much. He may have been working and claiming benefits,had savings over £6000 and over £16000 and not told them.Both of which are illegal and is benefit fraud. Barbara.

But he/she was doing something illegal - she is being charged with benefit fraud!!

x4xy wrote: »

I have to go to court at the beginning of february charghed with benefit fraud. In the IUC I admitted there has been an overpayment of £16,000 income support and said I would pay it back..

Zorz_2

chigley wrote: »

But he/she was doing something illegal - she is being charged with benefit fraud!!

Absolutely not.

In the eyes of the law, a person has done something illegal if they have been convicted of said crime. Being charged for a crime means that the relevant authorities have reason to believe that that person allegedly commited a crime and they are asking a court of law to decide on the matter. Until that person is convicted, then for all intents and purposes is innocent until proven otherwise.

drwho2011

Zorz wrote: »

Absolutely not.

In the eyes of the law, a person has done something illegal if they have been convicted of said crime. Being charged for a crime means that the relevant authorities have reason to believe that that person allegedly commited a crime and they are asking a court of law to decide on the matter. Until that person is convicted, then for all intents and purposes is innocent until proven otherwise.

The OP admitted it.

"In the IUC I admitted there has been an overpayment of £16,000 income support and said I would pay it back."

Zorz_2

Yes, but an overpayment in itself does not mean fraud. There is a difference between an honest error or malicious intent. The court will examine whether there is mens rea in the case or not, the presence of mitigating factors (as the mental illness), etc.

I'm not taking a position on the case here. The OP could be culpable, or may cannot be held accountable for this. What I'm trying to do, is to point out a dangerous error that chigley made, the assumption that if person X is accused (arrested, prosecuted) of something, then X is surely guilty. This isn't North Korea.