Legal eagles, Boys in Blue, bit of a Q 4 U

[samgab]

I think there is too much focus on the taxi fare, putting that aside does the original senario relate to theft or civil?
I believe it theft and reading the quotes from SAMGAB it would point this direction as well (plus also advice from law firm).
Also as pointed out Mr White Collar is a JP, therefore meant to uphold the law and be an upstanding community member.
Would this not make his situation worse because of his position of trust in society?

Yeah, I didn't mean to drag it off topic, I was just using a hypothetical example to try to illustrate that there is confusion about what are criminal and what are civil matters...

[samgab]

A large aspect that determines whether it is a civil or a criminal matter comes down to what is called "mens rea" or guilty mind.
It has to do with the INTENT.
If the person INTENDS to defraud, and does so dishonestly with intent to deceive, then it would likely be a criminal act; probably fraud rather than theft.
On the other hand, if the person doesn't intend to defraud but rather has a dispute about the value of goods or services, then it's civil.
Then there is the matter of PROVING that the person had the "mens rea" to commit fraud....
If the person attempts to pay a certain amount, though lesser than the agreed upon amount, and claims to have a valid reason for doing so, then it's civil. If on the other hand they pay nothing at all, and it can be proven that they entered the agreement without ever having the intention of paying anything, then it's fraud, and is a criminal matter, to oversimplify as much as possible.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ok the law is pretty clear on fraud for joe bloggs public. You present your check for goods knowing that you have no funds to cover it, bank persues complaint, charges follows, police prosecute and judge sentences you.
But what about businesses?
What if they knowingly order stock, onsell or receive payment for said stock, but don't pay the supplier.
How does this now become a civil matter not a criminal?
Unless of course its lots of money to involve the SFO.
Surely the senario is the same?
So why does Mr White Collar suddenly get protected from prosecution?
Also what if Mr White Collar was a Justice of the Peace and used his influence to gain credit?
Would this person then not be fit to be a JP?
Let alone a director of several companies using offshore financing to create new compaines in which to hide his dealings.

Some thoughts to ponder but some serious input would be appreciated all the same

Cheers

I dont have time to address this ATM but might get back to it.

Just so you know, if you give someone a cheque and then subsequently cancel it, or stop payment, or bounce it, the bounced cheque becomes a separate cause of action that will enable a summary judgment to be obtained, irrespective of anything else.

a client of ours found that out the hard way....

[mdnzz]

I dont have time to address this ATM but might get back to it.

Just so you know, if you give someone a cheque and then subsequently cancel it, or stop payment, or bounce it, the bounced cheque becomes a separate cause of action that will enable a summary judgment to be obtained, irrespective of anything else.

a client of ours found that out the hard way....

Thanks

But in this senario cheques are not actually the issue, it would rather be one of obtaining goods and services on credit(invoiced to account, usual T&C's applies), not paying for it while continuing to obtain more goods and services from others on credit.
Mr White Collar then dodges the bill collectors through a series of managers/employees.
Mr White Collar then enlists further offshore financial(same partners) backing to open other businesses with which the same senario applies.
Meanwhile all businesses are running at a loss.
Mr White Collar and offshore partners continue to start up new companies with limited shares, eg:1000 shared usually between 2-3 partners.

I'm no legal beagle and certainly not a financial genius, but I always thought the safest business practise was to invest in companies that ran at a profit not a loss.

I must have missed something in economics I guess

[Patrick]

I think there is too much focus on the taxi fare, putting that aside does the original senario relate to theft or civil?
I believe it theft and reading the quotes from SAMGAB it would point this direction as well (plus also advice from law firm).
Also as pointed out Mr White Collar is a JP, therefore meant to uphold the law and be an upstanding community member.
Would this not make his situation worse because of his position of trust in society?

Hey!!!

This is about the taxi fare now, totally hijacked, as always... And now you bring it back to topic? Man........

[dipshit]

He said, nothing wrong with the bike, happy on all counts, just stopped payment on the cheque because I could really

So you won't be dealing with DangerousBastard again then I presume?

Sounds like the sort of thing he would do and then have some long winded BS story how it was justifiable.

[Cr1MiNaL]

If a business purchases goods from a supplier and pays by cheque even though they know they do not have the funds to cover it is not illegal. They have time to arrange for a temporary overdraft, biz flexi etc with their bank managers. If there is no money to cover and no arrangement has been made, it is obvious that the bank will dishonour or bounce the cheque. I.e the supplier does not get paid on time - this is not fraud, it is knows as accounts receivables or debtors. If the business does not pay at all at the end of the financial year the suppliers will write off the debt owed this is knows as - bad debts. There is always a contingency for bad debts in any business and other repecossions follow. Nothing illegal with any of this, in fact it is quite common in business.


YR64L.

[Winston001]

But in this senario cheques are not actually the issue, it would rather be one of obtaining goods and services on credit (invoiced to account, usual T&C's applies), not paying for it while continuing to obtain more goods and services from others on credit.

Mr White Collar then dodges the bill collectors through a series of managers/employees.

Mr White Collar then enlists further offshore financial(same partners) backing to open other businesses with which the same senario applies.
Meanwhile all businesses are running at a loss.

Mr White Collar and offshore partners continue to start up new companies with limited shares, eg:1000 shared usually between 2-3 partners.

Ok. What you describe appears fraudulent. Proving fraudulent intent however is another matter entirely. The person you describe sounds as though they are acting deliberately and in a sophisticated way. Proving criminal intent can be very difficult.

The Registrar of Companies maintains a register of Banned Directors and anyone associated with a few companies falling over gets put on the list. Such directors are sometimes prosecuted under criminal law too.

Apart from that, a director has a legal obligation to ensure the company is solvent at all times ie. if it sold up, all the bills would be paid. Sounds simple but it isn't. A director may trade running up bills believing a contract is confirmed, only to lose it. Bugger.

A director is personally liable if the company trades as insolvent. The police say this is civil, so the creditors or the Liquidator have to sue him.

As for being a JP, that is only relevant on sentencing if he is convicted of a crime. It certainly won't help him.