Is this Credit Card fraud?

DCFC79

SareyC wrote: »

What would happen if my partners dad admitted to the credit card company what he has done? And willing to admit to fraud?

Cant say, might depend on if they have told the police.

[Deleted User]

I agree with DCFC79

It would be pure speculation on our part.

The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

Either way, I suspect the CC company will want to know, how your father came to be in possession of the card details.

Sabbathdei

I think all the OP's partner can salvage from this is to be more careful in future who they give their card to. He gave the card to his father and never thought about it again--both are HIS fault. At least the debt was paid off, which is something less to worry about; it's a bit like the Nigella Lawson case, though hopefully there's less money involved

INT1

Civil dispute, not fraud.

Your partner should'nt of allowed him to use the card or taken responsibility to ensure the card details couldn't be misuesed again.

Hope you get it sorted.

eddddy

INT1 wrote: »

Civil dispute, not fraud.

No - what the OP described is fraud. (Why do you think it's a civil dispute?)

It's actually very similar to the Grillo sisters case... The Grillo sisters were accused of fraudulently using Nigella Lawson's and Charles Saatchi's credit cards. (i.e. they bought things with the cards without permission.)

They faced a criminal trail - not a civil case.

(They were found not guilty, but it was not on a point of law. It was presumably because the jury were not convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' by the prosecution evidence.)

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Grillo_and_Grillo

In the OP's case, the fact that the partner's dad eventually repaid the money would probably be seen as a major mitigating factor - but it was still fraud.

chattychappy

Yes. Fraud legislation was cleaned up and re-enacted in the Fraud Act 2006. A number of elements need to be present for the offence to have been committed. The prosecuting agency (usually CPS) has to decide whether to prosecute and in the absence of a guilty plea, a jury sufficiently convinced.

In the case of CC fraud, usually the victim is the CC rather than the cardholder. But for the purposes of the Act, I believe showing that either could be exposed to the risk of loss would be sufficient.

On the basis of the OP's story, it sounds like fraud to me.

It is quite possible to have a civil case in parallel, just as you can sue a burglar for the damage to your property.

londonTiger

cc/cra might see this as a ploy to shift negatve entries to ones parents who have no intention of borrowing money from anyone anymore. you will probably have to prosecute first to make a convincing case to cra

if this is genuine and not a ploy, it might be wise to keep family relation in good terms and just take it on the chin and improve credit. sueing them for fraud will create life difficult fo them possibly even jail

bris

Not fraud, the op authorised the use I don't see it as any different to another card holder.

Op was negligent by giving the details out in the first place and failed to control the use of the card.

If the op did want to press charges (doubtful) then the CPS would drop it on the basis that the card holder allowed the use of the card, to much doubt for a successful prosecution.

Pugsley_03

More importantly I think you'd be best to consult the many pages on the main website about boosting your credit rating again.

There may well be a case of credit card fraud here, and there may be some upset family members if it goes any further, that's something you need to weigh up and make that decision.

In the mean time there are credit cards that can be taken out for people with low credit ratings, providing you use this every month for things like fuel or something and pay it off on time and in full you'll slowly start to rebuild that credit score.

Just don't let anyone else know about this card!!

I'm sure there's many more things you can do to boost the credit score and this is the site you need to be on to find them tips!

[Deleted User]

bris wrote: »

Not fraud, the op authorised the use I don't see it as any different to another card holder.

He authorised the first use, but not the subsequent ones.

That'd be like me loaning someone my car, then him/her helping themselves, whenever they felt like it.

Without my specific authority, subsequent use would be TWOC.