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

stugib

JethroUK wrote: »

drivel

"When in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind.

peachyprice

neilmcl wrote: »

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.

Yay, do you think I made the list :T :rotfl:

pvt

stugib wrote: »

"When in a hole, stop digging" comes to mind.

I fear our Jedd's gonna be back with his JCB shortly...

JethroUK

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

Failure to pay doesn't in and of itself amount to Fraud,
.....

It does - so no need for me to read anything based on that rudimentary mistake

If you "promise" to pay, and then fail, its fraud

It does not matter *when* your "intent" ion to withhold payment occurs

If a duck eats the cheq then give them cash, give them credit, write another cheq

Just pay!

Because that is the promise you made and what it is written on is totally irrelevant. In fact it does not need to be documented at all

If you 'say' you will pay, then you must pay

And the instant you decide not to pay is the same instant you commit a fraud

JethroUK

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

..... 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 .....

Only an idiot would forgive a promise based on airy fairy imaginings of what they thought maybe they had under their mattress

If you accept that total clap trap then yiu must also accept that a person paying for a £500 TV at the checkout can walk away with it for £400 just because *they thought* they had £500 in their wallet but did not realise their wife had taken £100 for food

Is just absurd and can never be an excuse for avoiding your promise to pay

RS2000.

JethroUK wrote: »

It does - so no need for me to read anything based on that rudimentary mistake

If you "promise" to pay, and then fail, its fraud

It does not matter *when* your "intent" ion to withhold payment occurs

If a duck eats the cheq then give them cash, give them credit, write another cheq

Just pay!

Because that is the promise you made and what it is written on is totally irrelevant. In fact it does not need to be documented at all

If you 'say' you will pay, then you must pay

And the instant you decide not to pay is the same instant you commit a fraud

I disagree, you wrote the cheque with the full intent to pay and a duck ate it. There was no dishonesty or false representation. So no fraud.

If you then refuse to pay, where is the false representation?

There isn't one so there isn't a fraud, there may however be a theft.

Mr_Norrell

JethroUK wrote: »

It does - so no need for me to read anything based on that rudimentary mistake

Your failure to read anything further demonstrates why you remain ignorant of the law.

To commit fraud, pursuant to the Fraud Act 2006, a person must do something with the intention of being dishonest. That's the key - intending to be dishonest.

I refer you to the test laid out in Ghosh as to what amounts to dishonesty in the criminal context.

Clearly you, as a reasonable member of the jury would feel that any bounced check irrespective of a person's dishonest intention or otherwise, amounts to fraud.

I, as a reasonable member of the jury, feel that it wouldn't satisfy the guilty mind, or mens rea, of the Fraud Act - I also suspect a majority verdict in this case.

Undervalued

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

Your failure to read anything further demonstrates why you remain ignorant of the law.

To commit fraud, pursuant to the Fraud Act 2006, a person must do something with the intention of being dishonest. That's the key - intending to be dishonest.

I refer you to the test laid out in Ghosh as to what amounts to dishonesty in the criminal context.

Clearly you, as a reasonable member of the jury would feel that any bounced check irrespective of a person's dishonest intention or otherwise, amounts to fraud.

I, as a reasonable member of the jury, feel that it wouldn't satisfy the guilty mind, or mens rea, of the Fraud Act - I also suspect a majority verdict in this case.

You know that.

I know that.

The majority of the sensible posters on this thread know that.

And guess what, we are all wasting our breath!

peachyprice

JethroUK wrote: »

And the instant you decide not to pay is the same instant you commit a fraud

At last, you get it, congratulations!

It's only fraud if, in your own words, you decide not to pay. It only took 4 pages of people telling you that for it to get through.

At least you now know the difference between a cheque bouncing because a person decides not to pay and a genuine reason for a cheque bouncing.

TBH, I'd given up any hope you you actually getting it, but you got there in the end, well done.

waamo

JethroUK wrote: »

Only an idiot would forgive a promise based on airy fairy imaginings of what they thought maybe they had under their mattress

If you accept that total clap trap then yiu must also accept that a person paying for a £500 TV at the checkout can walk away with it for £400 just because *they thought* they had £500 in their wallet but did not realise their wife had taken £100 for food

Is just absurd and can never be an excuse for avoiding your promise to pay

How do you account for the case law that says you are wrong?