If a cheque is not honoured for whatever reason it's clear case of fraud

OlliesDad

AS posted earlier, it is not as clear cut as you say.

Say for instance I write a cheque for £100, and this £100 is the last in my account. A few days later another company erroneously takes money from my account and therefore I am left with only £10 in my account. The cheque will bounce, however fraud has NOT occured.

Intent is important for criminal prosecution.

neilmcl

JethroUK wrote: »

Precisely!!!!

But it doesn't matter WHEN your intention to defraud occurs

It's the fact that you DO defraud

Obviously

No ifs no buts

Hence it is a simple case to prosecute ergo solicitor s will persue it for peanuts

and this legal theory has not diminished in allllllll these years

No, it's the fact that there is intention to knowingly commit fraud that counts. As explained there can be any number of reasons a cheque isn't honoured, not all of which would be classed as fraudulent.

I'm afraid you are simply wrong - "No ifs no buts"

hollydays

This seems to a thread posted by a lay person , asking lay people the definition of fraud.
Why not look it up in a law book instead? Why even start this thread?

Ectophile

JethroUK wrote: »

Precisely!!!!

But it doesn't matter WHEN your intention to defraud occurs

It's the fact that you DO defraud

Obviously

No ifs no buts

Hence it is a simple case to prosecute ergo solicitor s will persue it for peanuts

and this legal theory has not diminished in allllllll these years

But you are assuming that in all cases where a cheque bounces, then there was a deliberate intent to obtain goods or services by deception.

If the person writing the cheque had no idea that it was going to bounce, then there would be no intent, and hence no fraud.

The Bills of Exchange Act (as amended) provides very few defences in court if you are sued for bouncing a cheque - but that would be a civil action not a criminal one. http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/2063/the-pitfalls-of-paying-by-cheque

visidigi

Why do we keep having people post warnings praise and vents threads in consumer rights?

What's the purpose of that forum if its not used?!

pvt

JethroUK wrote: »

It is fraudulent to promise to pay (cheq and money borh make that promise), then not pay

End of!

Unfortunately, you're wrong. A cheque is not a "promise to pay", it is an instruction from the account holder to his bank to pay a sum of money. The word promise is not written on it anywhere, as it is with the banknotes you're comparing it to.

It is equivalent to a letter from you to your bank asking them to pay the bearer, or a named person, an amount of money.

The fraud that arises when you write a cheque and pass it as a payment with no intention that it will be paid, is one of "issuing a false instrument". There is no fraud if, at the time you issue it, you genuinely intended it as a payment and expected your bank to honour your request to pay.

Your complete lack of understanding of what a cheque is, is not adequately compensated for by your sticking "end of!" at the end of you post.

pvt

Yo Jedd,

This might help you understand it better:

http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque_and_credit_clearing/the_law_relating_to_cheques/

LilElvis

visidigi wrote: »

Why do we keep having people post warnings praise and vents threads in consumer rights?

What's the purpose of that forum if its not used?!

Can't actually see that the OPs statements constitute a praise, vent or warning either. Perhaps we need a new section? "Pointless Rambling" might work

JethroUK

Ectophile wrote: »

But you are assuming that in all cases where a cheque bounces, then there was a deliberate intent to obtain goods or services by deception.......[/URL]

That's true and so I don't need to read any more of your post

If you recognise that a cheque (like cash) is a *promise* to pay

Hence you can write this *promise* on someones shirt tail and it would be *fraudulent* not to honour it for whatever reason

Not sure why people are struggling with this

JethroUK

pvt wrote: »

..... A cheque is not a "promise to pay", ..

Errrrrr YES it is

If you do not recognise a promise when you get one without the word "promise" written on it then please don't represent yourself in court, it's best you consulta solicitor who can define it for you

Ditto "agreement" "contract"

pvt wrote: »

.... it is an instruction from the account holder to his bank to pay a sum of money. .....

The two are not mutually exclusive, so this does not negate the promise