|
By:
If someone goes to the police stating that a bookie won't pay out because they say the ticket is already cashed, plod will tell you to f-ck off.
|
|
By:
sure Dave but they didn't lose money. You need to have suffered loss of some sort for a civil case AFAIK
|
|
By:
It may not have been Bet365 that prompted the criminal case, as there is clearly an angle that Bet365 knowingly or negligently, facilitated it.
|
|
By:
The criminal case being bought by the state, as David lodged a civil case for money lost under someone else's name, rather than a nudge, nudge, wink, wink from Bet365. I'd make it the fave of the 2 possibilities myself
|
|
By:
So you think someone has been convicted of "laundering the proceeds of said fraud(s)" when there wasn't any fraud?
Anyway you are missing the entire point. If you or I go to the police claiming that a bookie has defrauded us, plod will say it's a civil matter and refuse to get involved. There are stacks of people with multi-accounts, for a number of reasons, from forgetting the details upwards. Bookies entire raison d'etre is to get customers and take all their money. They do not merit this kind of protection from the state, |
|
By:
I'm saying Bet365 prolly haven't gone to the police. The case was likely bought independently by the state instead imo.
I don't think the prosecution was in the public's interest or the law fair for these circumstances, but that's a separate issue. |
|
By:
in the other case, 365 reported fraud to the police, the same is likely here.
|
|
By:
if it was for 10 quid would the sentence have been the same?
|
|
By:
David reported the fraud himself when he lodged a civil case under someone else's name.
The other case is different. The account holder lodged the civil action in her own name. Settled out of court we can probably assume she won. In David's case Bet365 can be seen to act either knowingly or negligently imo in facilitating the money laundering crime and gained financially from it. There was plenty of evidence available to B365. In Martha's case they hadn't any evidence, only suspicion and they lost substantially from the bet. |
|
By:
dave
"when there wasn't any fraud?" How do you come to that conclusion? A criminal court came to a different view, and it seems indisputable "David" had things of value from B365 (introductory offers, getting bets accepted when he would not otherwise) which he would not have had were he not to have pretended to be Joe Bloggs and not "David". Taking money from a person or a company by pretending to be someone you are not is - aiui - pretty much the definition of fraud by false representation. |
|
By:
confiscation order for nearly £270,000
judge should've said your boss earns 4 times that every fkng day, give the man his money and stop being a bunch of greedy cnts ... |
|
By:
The judge wasn't being asked to make a decision on a civil case ("should B365 give David his money?") - that was the case David raised in civil court and then failed to have anyone show up for, bringing this world of pain down on his head.
The judge was being asked to make a decision on a point of law in a criminal case, whether David's behaviour constituted fraud. |
|
By:
The judge was being asked to make a decision on a point of law in a criminal case, whether David's behaviour constituted fraud.
the judge bullied "David" into pleading guilty threatening jail and then royally fckd him over with a criminal proceeds order (which could lead to jail if unsatisfied). |
|
By:
His behaviour constituted fraud the minute he opened an account in anothers name with the intention of dishonestly appropriating the property of B365 with no intention to return it,simple law!! He or his friends were lucky they weren't also done for conspiracy as he appears to have put some of them in the picture before using the accounts with their agreement.
|
|
By:
everyone who bets does so with the intention of appropriating the bookies property
|
|
By:
Dishonestly dave?
|
|
By:
Rich Ricci wanted to walk away from thousands of ante-post wagers. It is an absurdity to bring fraud into normal bookie/customer activity.
|
|
By:
all he did was open accounts for a few friends cos they were unsure how to do it.
don't believe him, ask the friends. |
|
By:
jon howard was found not quilty of money laundering and had 1000 of these accounts.
|
|
By:
Money laundering is a completely separate issue Senyatta.
|
|
By:
so if you were to make money using your friends/partners fantasy football team in their work league - you could get 2 yrs?
|
|
By:
In theory you could get longer!!
|
|
By:
What Cagliari said about conspiracy - I had not thought of that and it is a very serious offence
|
|
By:
Agree with Dave here. I think he should have pleaded not guilty.
|
|
By:
Just as well you weren't advising him then Howard,he would be in prison!!
|
|
By:
IMO if he had pleaded not guilty he would have been sent down, rather than copping a suspended sentence.
|
|
By:
Would have got the case a lot more publicity though. Bringing this whole thing under the spotlight including the bookies.
|
|
By:
he's going to prison anyway unless he can come up with £270,000 proceeds of crime that he never received.
|
|
By:
judge a complete disgrace imo
|
|
By:
Without knowing the specifics of the actual charges and the law I couldn't advise, but given the punishment I think there is definitely a case for a not guilty plea.
|
|
By:
The proceeds of crime payback is a disgrace. There is also the issue that B365 have software in place to immediately detect bets placed on different accounts from the same IP. They surely must have known. They can therefore be argued to have been the actual beneficiaries of the crime. Every account was down!
|
|
By:
Why is the judge a disgrace Dave? The guy broke the law,the judge advised him just the same as he would have done in any other case from gbh to rape etc,he is obliged to do this to give the defendant the opportunity to consider the consequences,most who know they are guilty or believe the evidence is solid will plead rather than the long odd on of a guilty verdict and a full sentence!! HTH
|
|
By:
different accounts from the same IP
what happens if you invite 25 of your friends round to yours and they're all gambling with 365 using your router ? |
|
By:
35 people in a pub all using the pubs wifi, all gambling with 365.
|
|
By:
What about those trading rooms that used to exist?
All in the same premises. It raises a quandary; if the users of those rooms also believe the exchanges are full of the house’s money, then doesn’t that create a problem? |
|
By:
all on the same computer too hulk?
|
|
By:
the disgrace isn't the fact that he was found guilty of fraud by misrep, it's that he's got a confiscation order for £270k!
|
|
By:
so he's down a few hundred k with bet365 and he has to pay back another 270k? which means bet365 will have doubled their profit from this guy? surely that can't be right?
|
|
By:
I’m not convinced it was as described anyway.
I heard the other case had substantial added issues including paying funds into a business account to claim a mortgage on false information, it would surprise me if there was more to this case too. |
|
By:
He was not found guilty Clydebank,he pleaded guilty!!
|