TOPIC REPRODUCES MATTERS AND DISCUSSIONS OF INTEREST FROM THE TREASURE TROVE OF PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SITES AROUND THE WEB WITHOUT PANEL COMMENTARY
Convicted of 15 counts of theft, two counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, one count of false accounting, two counts of obtaining property by deception, one count of forgery, and one count of perjury. The defendant was in practice as a solicitor. He negotiated a settlement of £100,000 for a client who suffered personal injuries. The defendant told the client that the amount awarded was £18,000 and retained at least
£75,000 for himself. In the case of another client, the defendant retained £3,000 out of an award of £18,000, and failed to repay costs to the LSC of £10,000 which the applicant had recovered from insurance. Various other amounts were stolen from clients in a variety of circumstances. Substantial amounts were obtained from the LSC. The applicant received payments over a period of nine years in respect of a client's pension after the client had died. The total amount obtained was in excess of £300,000. Considerable damage to the public confidence in the legal system 8 years.
R v PRICE [2007] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.)
Pleaded guilty to 24 counts of theft, and 19 counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception. He asked for 263 further offences to be taken into consideration. The defendant ran a financial services business, acting as an agent on behalf of various building societies and set up a fictitious investment scheme. The scheme ran for 3 years. Total loss to elderly clients and building society £10.4 million. 10 years. Conspiracy to defraud.
R v LEE AND WILLIAMS [2009] 1 Cr Ap R(S) 383
Two brokers were approached by others and use there [sic.] position as company directors and their close relationship with their bank to assist others to pass false cheques to the value of £20 million through their accounts. £15 million was cleared of which £14 million was recovered. The defendants received £210K. Convicted of conspiracy to defraud 5y 9m upheld. There was an element of breach of trust owing to their close relationship with the bank. The important point was the size of the conspiracy. The defendants fell to be punished not just by reference to their own gain but by reference to the scale of the conspiracy and the part they played in it. The fact that the victim was a bank did not help them in the light of the scale of the fraud.(The Crown Prosecution Service - Theft breach of trust)
– – –
The NINE QUESTIONS Blog will return with more facts.
