Brother borrowed 20k without consent

4Chickens

Some more musings.

At first I thought that your brothers' silence is damning him, he's knows he's guilty and has gone to ground.

However

When was your brother interviewed by the police?

And could his silence be on the advice of the police or even perhaps he has sought legal advice?

Any thoughts on this anyone?

NANANINANOONOO

4Chickens wrote: »

Some more musings.

At first I thought that your brothers' silence is damning him, he's knows he's guilty and has gone to ground.

However

When was your brother interviewed by the police?

And could his silence be on the advice of the police or even perhaps he has sought legal advice?

Any thoughts on this anyone?

He has been silent from the onset around 4th Sept and was interviewed on 24th Oct. He may have been advised to stay quiet since interview but he would not have expected police interview so may have not have felt need to seek advice before this. He has no money so not sure what help he could get free from a solicitor or under legal aid for this sort of thing as that is not readilly available nowadays even on low income.

Does anyone know what type of issue still qualifies for the legal aid system? I know you cannot get this help to prosecute or sue someone - not sure about getting help for defence.

imho

https://www.gov.uk/check-legal-aid

Dont think that link helps as i went through it as though i was you and doesnt really list fraud,But i would think because he has a nice house he wouldnt get free legal aid and plus he has a job.
I would check if your father can get free legal aid.
Good luck NANANINANOONOO were all rooting for you and your father on here.

NANANINANOONOO

imho wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/check-legal-aid

Dont think that link helps as i went through it as though i was you and doesnt really list fraud,But i would think because he has a nice house he wouldnt get free legal aid and plus he has a job.
I would check if your father can get free legal aid.
Good luck NANANINANOONOO were all rooting for you and your father you on here.

Got a feeling on what I found my bro will be entitled to legal aid despite owning his house. If he needs help with debts or is accused of a crime so needs defending he will be able to get a defence solicitor to act for him with legal aid.

My dad on the other hand cannot afford a solicitor and cannot get legal aid to take action against someone as it is his choice to take action even tho a crime has been commited against him.

Doesnt seem right somehow but that is why my dad had to use the police to get anywhere with this.

imho

Blimey everything seems stacked against your father.Its not fair if your brother gets free legal aid and your father cant.
Just take one day at a time as it will all end one day.

redpete

imho wrote: »

Blimey everything seems stacked against your father.Its not fair if your brother gets free legal aid and your father cant..

I think the situation is that the son might get legal aid to defend a criminal prosecution. The father would not get legal aid to bring a civil case against the son (and I'm not sure the son would get legal aid to defend the civil case).

dktreesea

It sounds to me like your Dad is in a similar position to a bank. A bank provides someone with a loan on the understanding they would pay it back. If they don't and the bank want their money back, there are two possibilities - they can report the loan to the police as fraud, as in the person borrowed the money but had no intention of paying it back, or make the person bankrupt, enabling them to get their mitts on otherwise secure assets to get their funds back.

If your dad can't prove fraud - and I don't see how he could, given he gave his son access to his accounts, so just his word against his son's, who is either going to claim the monies were a gift or a loan - then he should take him to court and obtain a CCJ against his son, and, if that doesn't work, commence bankruptcy proceedings against him.

Your dad has to make a decision - does he want contact with his son and son's family, including the grandchildren, or does he want his money? It appears so far he wants the latter, in which case his only chance of getting the money back is to force his son into bankruptcy, at which point the house will be sold and hopefully there will be sufficient equity for him to get his money back.

This isn't a short process. The son's best strategy is to wait it out. It's obvious he doesn't really value his father, or he wouldn't have stolen from him in the first place.

dktreesea

redpete wrote: »

I think the situation is that the son might get legal aid to defend a criminal prosecution. The father would not get legal aid to bring a civil case against the son (and I'm not sure the son would get legal aid to defend the civil case).

Yes, IF the police decide there's sufficient evidence to go ahead with a criminal prosecution. And I'm not sure they will. There's Dad on the one side saying the son took his money without permission, and the son on the other side saying his father agreed to either give or lend him the money. If I were the police, I would be thinking I didn't have a hope of getting a conviction because these accounts had been milked, with the father saying nothing, for what looks to be months or possibly even years. They could takes the view that this at least implies consent, if not means actual consent was given.

tinkerbell28

Have you actually even read the thread, or are you in a parallel universe?:huh:

NANANINANOONOO

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, IF the police decide there's sufficient evidence to go ahead with a criminal prosecution. And I'm not sure they will. There's Dad on the one side saying the son took his money without permission, and the son on the other side saying his father agreed to either give or lend him the money. If I were the police, I would be thinking I didn't have a hope of getting a conviction because these accounts had been milked, with the father saying nothing, for what looks to be months or possibly even years. They could takes the view that this at least implies consent, if not means actual consent was given.

I fear dktreesea you could be right.

Whilst we can see clearly why dad did not notice the money deplete from his savings accounts over a few years because...

a) he did not realise his savings accounts could also be accessed

b) he did not need to use those monies

c) those two facts meant he did not feel the need to check on them

d) he only used his visa card or cash point machine to withdraw cash from current account and did not check balance because he knew he had ample funds coming in to cover his needs and D/D's

e) he believed he still had a s/o in place transfering regular amounts each month into his savings account

f) my brother did not forward his statements and dad didnt realise he should still be receiving statements when doing online banking

g) without viewing a statement or checking his balance he had no way of seeing the transfers my brother was making

h) He never had any reason or incling to distrust or doubt my brother for one minute, he natrally believed he could trust him implicitly without question and assumed all was well - why wouldnt he? I did too!

Dad had a stroke in 2008, it was a worrying time and it took him a while but he did fully recover although dad was left with far less energy than beforehand. I now think that although he still is perfectly capable physically and mentally this has contributed to him being less shrewd and alert than he might have been before the stroke and it has frustrated him that he has become far more reliant on his family than he once was. It was around this time that my brother suggested he did his banking online for him.

Although everything my brother has done is very clearly morally wrong and obviously not what dad (as anyone who knows him would confirm) would have knowingly allowed to happen it might basically boil down to my fathers word against my brothers that it was done without his knowledge or consent which without sufficient evidence this may be hard to prove beyond doubt in a court of law which is what will be required :0(

Even the cashing in of shares with the fraudulent telephone recording evidence is not necessarilly sufficient for the police to make a case it seems :0(