GF stole money to pay Wonga.

matttye

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

theft is to perminantly deprive, as the OP has descovered the loss, and is making steps to recover, then this will amount to a lesser charge fraud.

i fail to now see where the GF has perminantly deprived him of his money when its more likely to be recovered.

did she steal the card no because she put it back so she USED the card without permission.
did she make a false representation to wonga 99% probably because she probably told them she had permission to use it.
did she gain from it yes she wiped a debt.
did the OP encure a loss yes £2k, wich will more likely be recovered.

if the OP after going through steps to recover not get his money back then he has been perminantly deprived then it will revert to theft.

I'm a trainee police station representative, but have been a legal secretary for 4 and a half years. I deal with criminal cases nearly every day of my life, either by going to the police station or working on case files. It is theft. We actually have one of these thefts at the moment, where someone borrowed a bank card to buy shopping for a vulnerable person in their care but then withdrew some extra money.

Let me address each of your points in turn:

"i fail to now see where the GF has perminantly deprived him of his money when its more likely to be recovered. " - like Bedsit Bob says, you need to prove an intention to permanently deprive, not that someone actually has been permanently deprived. The only way you could ever prove someone has been permanently deprived of something is if the item is destroyed or the person has died. Otherwise there is always a chance, however small, of them getting the item back. It is the INTENTION that matters.

"did she steal the card no because she put it back so she USED the card without permission." - she stole MONEY not the card.

"did she make a false representation to wonga 99% probably because she probably told them she had permission to use it." - whenever I use a card I'm just asked for the long number, expiry date and the CVC number 99% of the time. I'm not even usually asked if it's my card or what name appears on the card. If she simply gave Wonga the card details then she is not guilty of fraud. If she said it was her card, then yes she would be guilty of fraud (as well as theft).

"did she gain from it yes she wiped a debt." - no argument there.

"did the OP encure a loss yes £2k, wich will more likely be recovered." - again, no argument.

"if the OP after going through steps to recover not get his money back then he has been perminantly deprived then it will revert to theft." - as I said before, it's the intention to permanently deprive that matters.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Correction.

Theft is intending to permanently deprive.



(emphasis is mine)

fraud act 2006

abolitions.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/schedule/1/crossheading/abolition-of-various-deception-offences

many people think that the theft act covers this type of thing when the fraud act 2006 trumps over that sometimes.

Thrugelmir

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

what would that acheive Small claims takes ages, his money could be back in his account within a few weeks if he reports the fraud.

The alternative being what?

A system of reimbursement would open the doors to deception on a massive scale. People need to put their own houses into order first.

matttye

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

fraud act 2006

abolitions.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/schedule/1/crossheading/abolition-of-various-deception-offences

many people think that the theft act covers this type of thing when the fraud act 2006 trumps over that sometimes.

No, she would be charged with two offences as they are completely different.

The prosecution can't get 'two bites of the same cherry' so, for example, if someone is in possession of a knife and there's evidence that it is to be used as an offensive weapon (i.e. if it's a locking blade and the blade is open, and it's in the suspect's pocket), then they will be charged with possession of an offensive weapon. They would not also be charged with possession of a bladed article. This is because there would then be two offences arising from the same actus reus (possession of a knife).

However, in the case being discussed in this thread, the theft and the fraud are different. The theft is the taking of the OP's money, and the fraud is misleading Wonga into believing she has the authority to use the bank card (if indeed she did do that; there's no evidence to suggest she did).

There has definitely been a theft, but there might have been a fraud.

I think you are confused about how the law works.

opinions4u

Unless you can get to the root cause of her spending (it's probably psychological - it may be the way you are with her, it may be something that pre-dates you being in her life) this will happen again and again.

I'd find it totally unacceptable and, having already given one chance, would feel compelled to leave the relationship.

If you pursue the unauthorised transaction route you will provably get your money back. Your girlfriend will probably sink financially with the debt reinstated by Wonga. This will doubtless have an impact on you.

I don't envy your situation.

dealer_wins

Oh dear, the OP is one of those weak men who get used and used again all their life, and will never learn until its too late!!

fart

matttye wrote: »

No, she would be charged with two offences as they are completely different.

The prosecution can't get 'two bites of the same cherry' so, for example, if someone is in possession of a knife and there's evidence that it is to be used as an offensive weapon (i.e. if it's a locking blade and the blade is open, and it's in the suspect's pocket), then they will be charged with possession of an offensive weapon. They would not also be charged with possession of a bladed article. This is because there would then be two offences arising from the same actus reus (possession of a knife).

However, in the case being discussed in this thread, the theft and the fraud are different. The theft is the taking of the OP's money, and the fraud is misleading Wonga into believing she has the authority to use the bank card (if indeed she did do that; there's no evidence to suggest she did).

There has definitely been a theft, but there might have been a fraud.

I think you are confused about how the law works.

Thanks for setting it straight.

It's frustrating and dangerous to see the amount of people on here giving out plain wrong advice. A quick google tells you all you need to know about the difference between theft and fraud yet some people just won't take no for an answer - they would rather defend their wrong point to the death rather than just admitting that they got it wrong. It's especially annoying when they also use winks and capitals like they've made you look stupid when they are so far in the wrong it's laughable.

In this case, theft is stealing money, not a card because a card wasn't stolen. Fraud is deceit. I think the other poster is confused because for example, her asking her the OP for the card to do, say, some shopping, and then using it to pay Wonga £2k is fraud AND theft, as money has been stolen and the money was obtained through deception.

Whereas stealing money is a totally separate crime which is actually stand-alone unless the girlfriend told lies which facilitated Wonga in obtaining the funds - ie, putting on a voice and pretending to be the OP, claiming he's given her permission, claiming the card was hers etc.

You could probably do a lot of setting straight around here!:T

Kayalana99

Just my 2 cents,

My sister got into debt with Wonga and very and I basicly paid them for her - very happily took my card details with no questions asked. Wonga wouldn't let me pay it on my card as I was not the 'account holder' so I had to send the money into her account for it to be paid.

Needless to say I made sure the account DID get paid off...but they obvouisly have some measures in place to stop people using other peoples cards.

I also got the call from Santander to make sure they were correct (or the very one anyway) and good on them as we both have same last name and first letter first name...if that makes sense i.e both A Smith.

Edit: Actally if I remember rightly, they only take money from the orignal account the money was paid so I couldn't even put my details in with my 'A Smith' and pretend to be her paying .

Fishingtime

Surely this post is a wind up.
He is angry at Wonga but not his GF

JuicyJesus

Fishingtime wrote: »

Surely this post is a wind up.
He is angry at Wonga but not his GF

I can understand him not wanting to vent his relationship ending details on the loan forum of MoneySavingExpert.