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

Mr_Norrell

waamo wrote: »

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

unholyangel

If someone writes a cheque knowing full well there isnt money in their bank to cover it, that is fraud - because they intended to deceive.

If a cheque bounces because (for example) a direct debit is taken twice by mistake then there was no intent to deceive therefore it is a breach of contract rather than fraud.

There is no law against stopping a cheque itself - only if you handed over the cheque with the intention of stopping it.

Or have the courts, the police, the government, action fraud, citizens advice and umpteen other sources also got it wrong? You'd think they'd be the ones in the know given that the first three are responsible for writing, interpreting and enforcing the law.

Stevie_Palimo

pvt

You have got to hand it to our Jethro, 4 pages and nearly 80 posts in I have never seen such concord over a matter on MSE. I don't think there's a single post on this thread supporting his delusions about what he thinks a cheque is - it must surely be a record?

LilElvis

pvt wrote: »

You have got to hand it to our Jethro, 4 pages and nearly 80 posts in I have never seen such concord over a matter on MSE. I don't think there's a single post on this thread supporting his delusions about what he thinks a cheque is - it must surely be a record?

Pop over to Praise, Vent & Warnings and this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4869030

You will soon see that Jethro is an "amateur" compared to hpuse as he's on 108 pages, and counting

SeduLOUs

LilElvis wrote: »

You will soon see that Jethro is an "amateur" compared to hpuse as he's on 108 pages, and counting

Well thanks for that, just wasted almost an hour there but could only stomach about 6 pages.

LilElvis

SeduLOUs wrote: »

Well thanks for that, just wasted almost an hour there but could only stomach about 6 pages.

I think there is a medal for getting that far :beer:

RuthnJasper

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

Please stop. Please. Just stop.

lucy03

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

The company I work for (a restaurant chain) occasionally gets customers who forget to bring their wallet or they bring the wrong credit card. The vast majority (indeed AFAIK all of them) later pay using other means. You can insist that this is fraud, but it isn't, these things happen. What would be fraudulent is if they came in with the deliberate intent of not paying.

JethroUK

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.

E.G. Making a promise to pay (using a cheq) then NOT paying

What are you struggling to understand about this? I will help as much as possible

Mr_Norrell wrote: »

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.

Only if they ultimately fail to fulfill their promise (fail to pay) = irrefutable evidence of intent to deceive/fraud