Is it worth appealing against my conviction?

x4xy

PasturesNew wrote: »

"In trust" is something specific and refers to money that is tied up in a trust and to which a person has no access.

Having cash sloshing around that belongs to you or somebody else, no matter where it came from, isn't "in trust". It's cash sloshing around.

Money in trust will typically be tied up in a trust until the recipient reaches a certain age, at which point it becomes cash in their hand; until that point it's locked away completely out of reach.

Thanks for the clarification, but the definition of in trust is not what I am trying to get help for and it is not what I am worried about as I have dealt with it a thousand times before posting here... Maybe I have not explained it clear enough myself, so I repeat my question, and please do not write about anything else if you mean to be helpful.
My question to posters is this: do you have experience or some kind of personal knowledge that - for no other reason - by not ticking the box saying do you have any money in trust is enough for a judge to find you guilty? Thanks

FBaby

Isn't it straight forward?
Either the money wasn't there as a Trust (whatever the definition), and therefore was considered capital, in which case you should have ticked the box about capital,
Or, the money was as a Trust, yet you chose not to tick the box, meaning you withold information, which mean that you lied.

Either way, you are guilty of deceit.

rogerblack

PasturesNew wrote: »

"In trust" is something specific and refers to money that is tied up in a trust and to which a person has no access.

Having cash sloshing around that belongs to you or somebody else, no matter where it came from, isn't "in trust". It's cash sloshing around.

This is not correct.
Only money which is yours is counted as capital.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch52.pdf
Specifically, the example:
"Pradeep has a building society account. It is in her name so she is the legal owner of the money in that account. However, she says that the money in the account belongs to her sister Leena who is working abroad. On the day the account was opened £20,000 was put into it. Nothing has been paid into the account except interest and no money has been taken out. The DM has evidence from Leena that she gave £20,000 to Pradeep to save for her whilst she was working abroad and she wants it, and the interest, back when she returns. The DM decides that Pradeep is not the beneficial owner of the money in the building society account because she is holding it on trust for Leena."

In short - money in your bank account, that is others, can be disregarded.

This is unfortunately, possibly going to be hard to prove in reality, especially in the OPs case, as it's now been determined in court. He needs to find a solicitor experienced in benefit law, and for an appeal court to find that it was a breach of the law to not properly consider the fact that there may actually not have been an overpayment, and hence no fraud.

Emmzi

"In trust" has a specific legal meaning, being held "in trust" is a legal status and a bank account would be labelled "mr X in trust for Mr Y" for example.

Which is not the same as "being trusted."

I'd give up on the appeal idea, stop asking the same question over and over, see a solicitor for advice, etc etc.

skintandscared_2

Surely, a determining factor in whether the money was being held in trust or not (and whether the OP saw it in that way) is whether the OP has actually USED any of that money?

Just one question though (and sorry if this sounds a callous thing to ask but it may be important) - when you filled in the form, was your sister still alive and there was every intention that she would be taking the money back herself? If she died AFTER you had filled out the form it may well be that you then inherited some or all of that money. But then again, you would then have had to notify DWP of your change in circumstances I suppose.

thorsoak

On the form, you were asked "have you got any money in trust". But you DID have money in trust in your account - albeit belonging to your sister. Had you ticked the box and then explained that it was deposited in your account but belonged to your sister, then you might have had cause to appeal. But you didn't - and therefore the Judge reached the conclusion, rightly in the eyes of the law - that you committed fraud.

Frankly, you'll be throwing good money after bad. The fact that you represented yourself, that you were on medication, etc etc etc are not grounds for appeal in the eyes of the law.

x4xy

"...This is unfortunately, possibly going to be hard to prove in reality, especially in the OPs case, as it's now been determined in court. He needs to find a solicitor experienced in benefit law, and for an appeal court to find that it was a breach of the law to not properly consider the fact that there may actually not have been an overpayment, and hence no fraud."

Rogerblack, thanks again... But what about the fact I admitted overpayment at the interview under caution. Does this make me guilty?... I mean I the time - having explained the situation to my sister - she told me just pay back whatever they want with my money for now and then will will sort it out between us. Would the fact that I admitted overpayment make me automatically guilty?... All I meant was yes, there was money above the capital limit, but it was my sisters. But I am happy to pay it back if it keeps me out of any trouble or going to court.

x4xy

skintandscared wrote: »

Surely, a determining factor in whether the money was being held in trust or not (and whether the OP saw it in that way) is whether the OP has actually USED any of that money?

Just one question though (and sorry if this sounds a callous thing to ask but it may be important) - when you filled in the form, was your sister still alive and there was every intention that she would be taking the money back herself? If she died AFTER you had filled out the form it may well be that you then inherited some or all of that money. But then again, you would then have had to notify DWP of your change in circumstances I suppose.

My sister died well after my income support was suspended. Her death occurred while I was not on income support anymore. No, I never used the money for my own benefit. Yes, the money was meant for the sole use of my sister.

Dunroamin

x4xy wrote: »

"

Rogerblack, thanks again... But what about the fact I admitted overpayment at the interview under caution. Does this make me guilty?... I mean I the time - having explained the situation to my sister - she told me just pay back whatever they want with my money for now and then will will sort it out between us. Would the fact that I admitted overpayment make me automatically guilty?... All I meant was yes, there was money above the capital limit, but it was my sisters. But I am happy to pay it back if it keeps me out of any trouble or going to court.

The fact that you had access to the money and that you actually used it for your own purposes rather goes against your argument that it was being held in trust for your sister.

I'd just accept that you got off lightly and go on with your life.

rogerblack

x4xy wrote: »

Rogerblack, thanks again... But what about the fact I admitted overpayment at the interview under caution. Does this make me guilty?.

An admission based on the representative of the DWP misrepresenting the law, may not be binding, it does however mean you would have to argue this point to the appeal.

(If, as in your earlier account, they said 'if it's in your account, it's legally yours' (or words to this effect).

A solicitor is absolutely needed, if you wish to try to appeal.