My. Tesco Android Signal Is Poor
Technology3 mins ago
S2 Fraud Act
Two years ago my ex-wife dropped the bombshell that my 15year old daughter was not mine. She admitted this to the CSA who calculated that I had overpaid £3500 in payments but that I would have to sort it out between ourselves as i had made direct payment. My ex wife suggested that I cash in the life policy on our daughter £5000. In order that her current husband didnt find out we arranged the correspondance to come to my address and like an idiot I signed the form for her on her agreement. Now 18months down the line I have been arrested and bailed at home to go to the Police station later in the week. Am i right in thinking that i will be Ok as I was in the belief that I was acting honestly?? It is her word now against mine and I know for a fact that she has been taking anti- depressants
Answers
'Fraud' used to be dealt with under the Theft Act 1968. That provided the following defence:
"A person’s appropriatio
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he...
"A person’s appropriatio
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he...
19:32 Sun 13th Mar 2011
'Fraud' used to be dealt with under the Theft Act 1968. That provided the following defence:
"A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it"
Under that Act, simply pointing out that you were only getting the money which your ex had agreed you were entitled to would seem to have provided a sufficient defence.
However the Fraud Act 2006 (which, as far as fraud is concerned, replaced the relevant sections of the Theft Act 1968) provides no such statutory defence. However it does state that, for a successful prosecution, it must be shown that you 'intended to make a gain' (or intended to cause another person a loss). If you can show to a court that you had no such intention (since you were only reclaiming money which was rightfully yours anyway, rather than 'making a gain') you should not be convicted:
http://www.legislatio...35/crossheading/fraud
I think that it's definitely time to seek some professional legal advice!
Chris
"A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it"
Under that Act, simply pointing out that you were only getting the money which your ex had agreed you were entitled to would seem to have provided a sufficient defence.
However the Fraud Act 2006 (which, as far as fraud is concerned, replaced the relevant sections of the Theft Act 1968) provides no such statutory defence. However it does state that, for a successful prosecution, it must be shown that you 'intended to make a gain' (or intended to cause another person a loss). If you can show to a court that you had no such intention (since you were only reclaiming money which was rightfully yours anyway, rather than 'making a gain') you should not be convicted:
http://www.legislatio...35/crossheading/fraud
I think that it's definitely time to seek some professional legal advice!
Chris
Many thanks for the answer Chris. I was only arrested and bailed this afternoon so am waiting for the local solicitors office to open in the morning. Having done a quick bit of research on-line though the word 'dishonestly' appears in the definition hence my train of thought regarding acting lawfully.
I was owed £3.5k yes the policies were taken out when my daughters were born incidentally always paid from my bank account, when my ex and I seperated I carried on paying the policies. I believe they were children policies set up in my 2 daughters names which were due to mature as each daughter reached 18. No evidence to my ex wife's part in this other than phone calls that took place which were off my eldest daughters mobile. I signed her name as she told me to and then it went into my mums bank account where it still is
true, but i think you may have a lot of trouble explaining this to the police/court. I don't really understand why you would trust your ex if there was so much bad blood and police complaints. I also don't really understand why you would take money off your kids (well, one of your kids, and the other one you've been a dad to for years).
Anyway in a slight answer to your actual question, i don't think the fact she takes anti depressants will help or hinder you in any way
Anyway in a slight answer to your actual question, i don't think the fact she takes anti depressants will help or hinder you in any way
I have to say, I think you've been foolish. forging her signature will be your biggest problem.
the Theft Act states that you have to have taken something with the intention of permanently depriving someone. I think you may have to work around that you were not going to keep the money, but a solicitor will advise you on the best course of action. if you have any evidence that will discredit her, I'd suggest you take it with you.
the Theft Act states that you have to have taken something with the intention of permanently depriving someone. I think you may have to work around that you were not going to keep the money, but a solicitor will advise you on the best course of action. if you have any evidence that will discredit her, I'd suggest you take it with you.
What gets stranger and stranger?
1. Ex-wife informs CSA that my youngest daughter isn't mine
2. CSA say ex wife owes me £3.5k overpayment but due to me paying directly to ex-wife they say I have to recover money.
3. Ex wife agrees to pay me back by giving me insurance policies. Due to her living 200 miles away and her new husband been a spendaholic it is agreed paperwork would come to my house for me to sign and for money to go in to my mums account as she shares same name as ex
4. 18month down line I get arrested for something i believedd was honest and undertaken with all parties agreement
5. At the most I am guilty of been soft in the head
1. Ex-wife informs CSA that my youngest daughter isn't mine
2. CSA say ex wife owes me £3.5k overpayment but due to me paying directly to ex-wife they say I have to recover money.
3. Ex wife agrees to pay me back by giving me insurance policies. Due to her living 200 miles away and her new husband been a spendaholic it is agreed paperwork would come to my house for me to sign and for money to go in to my mums account as she shares same name as ex
4. 18month down line I get arrested for something i believedd was honest and undertaken with all parties agreement
5. At the most I am guilty of been soft in the head
Jackthehat I don't have the answers to those questions at the minute. I was sat watching TV this afternoon when 2 police officers came to door asked to come in told me I was been arrested what I was been arrested for then cautioned me. They then gave me a yellow slip and told me I was bailed to appear at Police Station on Tuesday still a little stunned to say the least and very very annoyed
