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

pvt

JethroUK wrote: »

Errrrrr YES it is

So you didn't get as far as the first sentence of the second para of the link I posted, where it rather unambiguously informs that:

Ever since their inception it has been the case that cheques are not a promise to pay....

JethroUK

pvt wrote: »

...
Ever since their inception it has been the case that cheques are not a promise to pay....

Errrrrr YES they are

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 of you do not recognise an "agreement" without the word "agreement" on a piece of paper

Ditto it you do not recognise a "contract"

neilmcl

Whether it's a promise to pay or not is irrelevant.

A bounced cheques DOES NOT constitute fraud, for the reasons that have already been mentioned!

JethroUK

OlliesDad wrote: »

Intent is important for criminal prosecution.

Quite, but WHEN that intent occurred is not

Are you getting this yet?

neilmcl

JethroUK wrote: »

Quite, but WHEN that intent occurred is not

Are you getting this yet?

No, there's either intent or there's not - are YOU not getting it yet :wall:

RS2000.

JethroUK wrote: »

Quite, but WHEN that intent occurred is not

Are you getting this yet?

Correct but intent HAS to be an element of the offence.

A bounced cheque would only be fraud if the person issuing it knew it was likely to bounce. If they issued it with good intent and they too were a victim of fraud and their account was emptied between the cheque been issued and presented, have they comitted fraud?

wealdroam

OP, what is the Consumer Rights issue you need help with?

lucy03

JethroUK wrote: »

Quite, but WHEN that intent occurred is not

Are you getting this yet?

No. You said that it is fraud to issue a cheque which doesn't clear. It isn't, that doesn't meet the requirements of the 2006 Fraud Act. The other posters were right, intent has to be proved.

If someone writes out a cheque and forgets they've got a direct debit coming out and so the cheque bounces then that isn't fraud. It would be possible to take civil action to recover the money but there wouldn't be any fraudulent behaviour here. If someone issues a cheque knowing it won't clear to obtain goods then that would potentially meet the requirements of the Act.

tomtontom

wealdroam wrote: »

OP, what is the Consumer Rights issue you need help with?

Maybe he wants to sue whoever has been feeding him crazy juice?

JethroUK

RS2000. wrote: »

Correct but intent HAS to be an element of the offence.

It does not matter WHEN the intent occurs

RS2000. wrote: »

A bounced cheque would only be fraud if the person issuing it knew it was likely to bounce. If they issued it with good intent and they too were a victim of fraud and their account was emptied between the cheque been issued and presented, have they comitted fraud?

Of course!!!!

That can not say "a duck ate their money" to evade fulfilling their promise - whether a duck ate it or they have to honour the PROMISE they made to pay

I'm not sure whether you don't understand because it's too complicated for you or whether it's because you are being deliberately obtuse

Whatever your reason

I won't be explaining this to you any more

You are now being ignored

Just watch and learn for here on in