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

JethroUK

RS2000. wrote: »

You need to prove dishonesty ...

Not fulfilling a "promise to pay" is all the proof anyone needs

This is obviously too difficult for you

RS2000.

JethroUK wrote: »

Not fulfilling a "promise to pay" is all the proof anyone needs

This is obviously too difficult for you

No it's not, a fact too difficult for yourself.

If you fully intend to pay and the cheque is accdentially destroyed once you've handed it over wouldn't make it fraud.

halibut2209

I feel left out. Can you put me on ignore too?

hollydays

This is the weirdest thread ever.

JethroUK

RS2000. wrote: »

No it's not, a fact too difficult for yourself.

If you fully intend to pay and the cheque is accdentially destroyed once you've handed it over wouldn't make it fraud.

The cheq is just a piece of paper and destroying does not negate the promise to pay any more than a destroyed agreement negates an agreement

It does not

Irrespective of what happens to the peice of paper you *have* to pay

Failure to do so *is* fraud

The absence of paperwork will just make it more difficult to evidence is all

neilmcl

cookie365 wrote: »

How do you know who the OP has got on his ignore list?

I didn't know it was even possible to see who was ignoring you.

Err, maybe it's something to do with the fact that the OP has been telling posters with an opposing view that they're now being ignored!

If he carries on then his own posts will be the only ones he'll be arguing with

RS2000.

On you opening post you wrote.

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

Which is untrue, which part of that are you having trouble with?

peachyprice

OP, why haven't you responded to either of these 2 posts?
Can you explain how this would be fraud please?

peachyprice wrote: »

I write a cheque, in the time between it being presented my account is emptied due to fraud. I have not committed fraud by writing the cheque.

OlliesDad wrote: »

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.

Mr_Norrell

JethroUK wrote: »

Irrespective of what happens to the peice of paper you *have* to pay

Failure to do so *is* fraud

The absence of paperwork will just make it more difficult to evidence is all

Failure to pay doesn't in and of itself amount to Fraud, it depends on the intention of the defendant.

The Court of Appeal in Metcalfe(1) rejected his appeal. His defence was that he intended to pay money into his account to meet the cheque on presentation. However evidence adduced pointed to the appellant's dishonest state of mind and his conviction for theft by deception was upheld.

Theft by deception is now found under the Fraud Act 2006 which has three general ways to commit fraud: false representation, failure to disclose information and abuse of position.

In this case if a person deliberately set out to pay for things using cheques he knew would bounce, then he'd most likely be guilty of fraud by false representation: the representation being that he was good to pay for the items which he knew to be false and that he made a gain for himself or caused a loss to another.

However, this all hangs on "dishonesty" which is the mental element of the offence and this is why we don't see everybody who has a bounced cheque in jail.

Dishonesty is a question of fact for the jury to decide. The test for dishonesty is the Ghosh(2)test. The Ghosh test is: what was done was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that the person must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards, dishonest.

It would be unlikely that the ordinary person who has a bounced cheque would satisfy the Ghosh test.

Secondly, it would also be unlikely that the ordinary person would know that his representation was untrue or misleading: what matters is the accused's actual knowledge. If they knew they had £20 in the bank to pay for a £10 item, but didn't know there was a standing order for £20 coming out at the same time, then they could reasonably argue that the representation wasn't untrue or misleading - again, it would depend on how the jury applied the Ghosh test to the facts of the case.

(1) R v Metcalfe [1963] Crim LR 502
(2) R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110

neilmcl

peachyprice wrote: »

OP, why haven't you responded to either of these 2 posts?
Can you explain how this would be fraud please?

He hasn't responded to a lot of posts, probably because the posters are all now on his ignore list. Which is why this thread has become a complete waste of space.