Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Accepting Gifts
17 Answers
Can a council employee be sent to prison if they accept cheques from clients they are caring for in the community? They didn't declare it and are being taken to court for fraud. Do you think a suspended sentence is possible with no previous convictions and of good character?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cameliaheartfelt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We'll need more information about the nature of the alleged offence if we're to provide a meaningful answer:
Why were cheques being accepted? Was it, say, because the carer pretended that there was a charge for the services which were already paid for, or was there some other reason?
How many clients were involved? How much money was involved? Has it been paid back? Did the offences span a long period or were there, say, just a couple of cheques which were accepted?
The answers to those questions like those will make a LOT of difference to any sentence imposed by a court. For example, if the offender did some shopping for a client and accepted a tenner more than it cost on just a couple of occasions, he's definitely not going to prison. On the other hand, if he defrauded a large number of people of most their life savings over an extended period of time, using a carefully planned strategy to do so, he'd better not book any holidays for the next few years.
WE NEED MORE INFORMATION!
Why were cheques being accepted? Was it, say, because the carer pretended that there was a charge for the services which were already paid for, or was there some other reason?
How many clients were involved? How much money was involved? Has it been paid back? Did the offences span a long period or were there, say, just a couple of cheques which were accepted?
The answers to those questions like those will make a LOT of difference to any sentence imposed by a court. For example, if the offender did some shopping for a client and accepted a tenner more than it cost on just a couple of occasions, he's definitely not going to prison. On the other hand, if he defrauded a large number of people of most their life savings over an extended period of time, using a carefully planned strategy to do so, he'd better not book any holidays for the next few years.
WE NEED MORE INFORMATION!
I//sn't this more 'company' law and the worst outcome is the sack? I don't actually know.//
O god I do - no it is not company law but it could be internal disciplinary and he could be fired if convicted and they could do it all over again anyway at disciplinary l;evel if acquitted - it is settled law that this is NOT double jeopardy
and yes it sounds as tho the charge is s2 Fraud Act
and altho you dont have to in order to be convicted
it sounds as tho the accused made money from it
his defence is that he was given it
and the complainant - perhaps a relation of the giver - is saying no there is a adult safe-guarding issue - the giver in plain language was ga-ga and had been pressured
Some do and some dont ( go to prison ) depending on the facts
O god I do - no it is not company law but it could be internal disciplinary and he could be fired if convicted and they could do it all over again anyway at disciplinary l;evel if acquitted - it is settled law that this is NOT double jeopardy
and yes it sounds as tho the charge is s2 Fraud Act
and altho you dont have to in order to be convicted
it sounds as tho the accused made money from it
his defence is that he was given it
and the complainant - perhaps a relation of the giver - is saying no there is a adult safe-guarding issue - the giver in plain language was ga-ga and had been pressured
Some do and some dont ( go to prison ) depending on the facts
can;t we do our best on the information provided ?
since s2 is a conduct crime ( you can be convicted on the dishonesty aspect even if you have made no money) I am not sure if the amount is material for a conviction
conning a vulnerable adult is a definite no-no
BC - what are the sentencing criteria for s2 ?
since s2 is a conduct crime ( you can be convicted on the dishonesty aspect even if you have made no money) I am not sure if the amount is material for a conviction
conning a vulnerable adult is a definite no-no
BC - what are the sentencing criteria for s2 ?
well thye re here
but I cant make head or tail of them
https:/
chris heeeelp !
but I cant make head or tail of them
https:/
chris heeeelp !
More info. Said people worked in the community. An elderly gentleman befriended them, was grateful for what they had done for him, went over and above. Had no family, put them both in his will. He gave them both cheques of 8k & 5k each and they didn't declare it. They know they did wrong. CPS involved. A neighbour raised concerns. I'm not sure why. Are they going down for this as first offence and gentleman/client wanted them to have money. He is totally with it so no doubt there.
Thanks for the extra information but I'm still left confused.
If a care worker accepts money from a client (where that money is freely given) they will almost certainly be in breach of their contract with their employer (especially if they try to hide the payment) but they WON'T be committing any criminal offence. It only becomes 'fraud by abuse of position' where 'dishonesty' is involved:
https:/
So the Crown Prosecution Service clearly takes the view that the care workers were 'dishonest' in some way. There's nothing in the information that you've provided to indicate why they should be taking that view, so we're still left largely in the dark as to the case against them.
Based upon the EXTREMELY limited information we've been given (but taking into account the sums involved), my best guess would be that (if convicted) the offenders would be given custodial sentences but that those sentences would probably be suspended.
If a care worker accepts money from a client (where that money is freely given) they will almost certainly be in breach of their contract with their employer (especially if they try to hide the payment) but they WON'T be committing any criminal offence. It only becomes 'fraud by abuse of position' where 'dishonesty' is involved:
https:/
So the Crown Prosecution Service clearly takes the view that the care workers were 'dishonest' in some way. There's nothing in the information that you've provided to indicate why they should be taking that view, so we're still left largely in the dark as to the case against them.
Based upon the EXTREMELY limited information we've been given (but taking into account the sums involved), my best guess would be that (if convicted) the offenders would be given custodial sentences but that those sentences would probably be suspended.
well an interesting case
are you interested in what they will get because they have pleaded guilty or because you are sure they will be convicted
( like you know they said they done wrong)
at present they have a defence
if the old boy is capable of making a will
then I would have thought a decent lawyer would make out a case that he can give them moolah whilst he is alive as well
is he for example going to turn up to court
and say 'I am not a victim; ?
are you interested in what they will get because they have pleaded guilty or because you are sure they will be convicted
( like you know they said they done wrong)
at present they have a defence
if the old boy is capable of making a will
then I would have thought a decent lawyer would make out a case that he can give them moolah whilst he is alive as well
is he for example going to turn up to court
and say 'I am not a victim; ?
The senior gentleman is now in a home and confused but wasn't at the time over a 2 yr period. Im interested to know what they will get based on the law and circumstances. The cps are also saying other money is 'missing' which can't be accounted for. Not gone to court yet but accused will plead guilty to doing wrong re accepting 'gifts without declaring to council. To get a lesser sentence sometimes you have to plead guilty but they don't want to as not done wrong other than re: 'gifts received'. Solicitor has said a custodial sentence of 10 yrs but syrely not if first offence and good character.
curiouser and curiouser
ten years seem a long time on the information you have given
Chris BC is good at the sentencing guidelines
if the lawyer has said ten years - why are you asking us ? do we really know more about the case than he does ?
and no if it is gonna be that long
I dont think I would plead guilty to anything
have they been charged with misfeasance in public office ?
ten years seem a long time on the information you have given
Chris BC is good at the sentencing guidelines
if the lawyer has said ten years - why are you asking us ? do we really know more about the case than he does ?
and no if it is gonna be that long
I dont think I would plead guilty to anything
have they been charged with misfeasance in public office ?
I don't know much more than what Ive said. I will be in court to hear the case and i may be shocked and surprised. I just think the solicitor isn't that good from what ive heard, surely not custodial. And will maybe advised to plead guilty to get sentence cut i think is atrocious when you aren't guilty. You could see this in the news so watch this space, was on local news.
>>> Solicitor has said a custodial sentence of 10 yrs
I'd be prepared to bet that he hasn't! The MAXIMUM sentence for fraud is 10 year's imprisonment (and that's probably what he's referring to). However
(a) such a sentence is rarely passed and, if it is, the offence would have to relate to vast sums of money (such as a company director stealing millions of pounds from the firm's pension fund) ; and
(b) even if a judge though that the maximum sentence was appropriate for a fraud offence, he'd still have to knock a third off it if the offender pleaded guilty at the first possible opportunity.
I repeat that accepting a gift and failing to tell an employer about it is NOT a criminal offence (even though it's clearly a disciplinary one). So the people you refer to CAN'T have been charged with 'failing to tell their employer about the money'. The charge MUST specifically relate to 'dishonesty' and therefore (presumably) will seek to imply that the care workers deliberately sought to con money out of their client.
You've asked about sentencing and I stand by the final paragraph of my previous post.
I'd be prepared to bet that he hasn't! The MAXIMUM sentence for fraud is 10 year's imprisonment (and that's probably what he's referring to). However
(a) such a sentence is rarely passed and, if it is, the offence would have to relate to vast sums of money (such as a company director stealing millions of pounds from the firm's pension fund) ; and
(b) even if a judge though that the maximum sentence was appropriate for a fraud offence, he'd still have to knock a third off it if the offender pleaded guilty at the first possible opportunity.
I repeat that accepting a gift and failing to tell an employer about it is NOT a criminal offence (even though it's clearly a disciplinary one). So the people you refer to CAN'T have been charged with 'failing to tell their employer about the money'. The charge MUST specifically relate to 'dishonesty' and therefore (presumably) will seek to imply that the care workers deliberately sought to con money out of their client.
You've asked about sentencing and I stand by the final paragraph of my previous post.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quickest Way To Get A Gift To My...
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Editor's Blog34 mins ago
