Jump to content

can i get away with this ?


La Roche
 Share

Recommended Posts

By backtracking and claiming it's all to do with a third party IMHO the OP has now completely lost what little credibility he possessed..

Does not the subject of the post "CAN I GET AWAY WITH THIS ?" say it all ?

As for the final comment "NO i would not feel guilty either as these people make billions", this only serves to demonstrate a fundamentally dishonest mindset.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ultimately the decent responsible credit card holder ends up paying.[:@]

I hope that the OP will not be one of those Brits that gives the rest of us a bad name in France by "getting away" without filling in a tax form or "getting away" with claiming things that he is not entitled to or " getting away" with working on the black.  But my first impressions tell me different.[:(]

I hear Spain's very nice and very warm, I don't suppose you'd consider....[Www]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Paul, your kind reply makes me feel so  much better!  The business would not have failed, it was flourishing, and no -one expects a routine small operation to lead to disablement. My daughter was told she would need only an overnight stay and would be back in her business in two days.  Perhaps you have never done anything in good faith that went wrong?  If so, you are a very lucky person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="La Roche"]............. NO i would not feel guilty either as these people make billions , if on the other hand it was a person , my heart would not allow me !!!  [/quote]

So how about stealing from Richard Branson then ? Does he fall into the billions or the person category ?

John

not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the logic that shoplifters use - retail stores make lots of money so it doesn't matter if I steal something ? And who pays - the rest of the customers. [:@]

If you have a problem go to the MSE link I gave. Otherwise you will spend your life looking over your shoulder - beware of the man with a clipboard !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

LL's point about theft is perfectly valid - and relevent to the question raised in this thread.

There is an offence of dishonestly inducing a creditor to wait for payment or to forgo payment with the intention of permanently defaulting on all or part of an existing liability (Theft Act 1978, section 2 (1) (b) - now replaced by the Fraud Act 2006).  During my banking days, I used this legislation for pursuing fraudsters and, on occasions, recidevist debtors...

 

[/quote]

No it is not, LL used the Theft Act in the context of someone being given the wrong change.  This is not applicable as it is not theft, ie without using the latin, it is not necessarily the intention and definitely not the deed.  But like I said it was the wrong analogy.  We are talking about something different. If you chose to disagree with me then so be it, but don't come on here making out you are an expert..  Anyone who comes on here and takes advice without checking, would be crazy, so nobody is an expert. 

Why is it some people on here have a desire for status here by publishing their professions???  I do find that a bit suspect.  Also I do not see the need to have a go at the OP as he created an interesting discussion.

 

Sorry again LL IMOH you used the wrong analogy, someone being given the wrong change is not theft., you will be sending lots of us on guilt trips, when this happens often.  [:)]

Georgina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being given too much change is theft if the person receiving the money realises it. Then, having realised it, at the moment he/she decides to keep the money when they had an opportunity to give it back, it becomes theft. The intention occurs when that decision is made and the definition of theft thus becomes satisfied.

However, the issue is not whether it is theft, it is proving the person is guilty that is the problem. There has to be evidence of intent and who is going to admit that?

Mel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Georgina"][quote user="Sunday Driver"]

LL's point about theft is perfectly valid - and relevent to the question raised in this thread.

There is an offence of dishonestly inducing a creditor to wait for payment or to forgo payment with the intention of permanently defaulting on all or part of an existing liability (Theft Act 1978, section 2 (1) (b) - now replaced by the Fraud Act 2006).  During my banking days, I used this legislation for pursuing fraudsters and, on occasions, recidevist debtors...

 

[/quote]

No it is not, LL used the Theft Act in the context of someone being given the wrong change.  This is not applicable as it is not theft, ie without using the latin, it is not necessarily the intention and definitely not the deed.  But like I said it was the wrong analogy.  We are talking about something different. If you chose to disagree with me then so be it, but don't come on here making out you are an expert..  Anyone who comes on here and takes advice without checking, would be crazy, so nobody is an expert. 

Why is it some people on here have a desire for status here by publishing their professions???  I do find that a bit suspect.  Also I do not see the need to have a go at the OP as he created an interesting discussion.

 

Sorry again LL IMOH you used the wrong analogy, someone being given the wrong change is not theft., you will be sending lots of us on guilt trips, when this happens often.  [:)]

Georgina

[/quote]

I'm a bit taken aback by your response, Georgina, both in it's content and tone.

The original poster clearly stated his desire to deprive his credit card company of their money by a deliberate act of evading his responsibility.

LL explained that mens rea is the legal term for "guilty mind" which is a precondition of committing the offence of theft and this was clearly evident in the OP's comments. In mentioning the example of deliberately retaining change to which one was not entitled, LL was merely illustrating the concept of the guilty mind under law.

I chose to take the concept a stage further and focused on the particular situation as presented by the OP.

You decide to take exception to this, and tell me not to come on here making out I’m an expert.

You then incorrectly state that being given the wrong change is not theft, so I assume you are not an expert.

You then complain about people taking advice without checking.

Perhaps you didn’t notice LL mention that he was a lawyer? Perhaps you didn’t notice me mention my commercial experience of using this legislation? I even quoted the actual law so anyone interested could check it out for themselves.

Then again, in the next breath, you complain about people mentioning their status.

Make your mind up…..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an amazing topic and La Roche can't really be serious but he is playing "devils advocat" to get an interesting discussion going. Surely anybody who would do this would burn their bridges, just imagine, you could never go back to the UK again, you could never ever get a credit rating again. And in the long run, we the consumers suffer for such acts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically this not THEFT but a Debt.

If, however, the Credit Card/s were obtained Fraudulently and then the Goods were obtained using that/those Cards, then that would Constitute Theft under the Fraud Act, not under the Theft Act.

Just by clearing off to another Country does not mean that the Debt will be absolved. Most Countries have cross border agreements whereby Debtors can and will be pursued. A few countries do not but unless you want to live in North Korea or similar you will/can be arrested and dealt with accordingly.

Basically, it is just not worth it. Better approach the Banks concerned, own up to your problems and it can be sorted. Otherwise you  will NEVER be able to obtain Credit/Morgage etc. in the future.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Georgina"]Why is it some people on here have a desire for status here by publishing their professions???  I do find that a bit suspect.  Also I do not see the need to have a go at the OP as he created an interesting discussion[/quote]

I do not see stating one's qualification to offer advice on a specific point as status seeking, more especially so when it is brought into question.

I'm sure nobody here will accuse you of such intent Georgina if you care to reveal to us your expert qualifications on the subject but if you choose not to then I'm afraid your very own phrase "don't come on here making out you are an expert" will begin to sound somewhat hypocritical.

Attacking such knowledgeable and respected contributors as SD & LL will win you very few friends here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt sombody will shoot me down...but going from memory .....I dumped the books 17 years ago   I was taught

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention at the time of taking perminently to deprive the owner thereof  and "thief " and "steal " shall be construded accordingly It is immitterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain or for the thiefs own benefit ."

I my view you can argue the thing for weeks but when the guy .....decides...... he is NOT going to pay back what he is duty bound to pay and takes  a course of action to  permenantly avoid the payment..........commits the offence .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Frederick.  Another viewpoint could be that in this instance all the credit card companies are asking the borrower to do is what he agreed to do be it maintain minimum payments or whatever and to at least make payments on a monthly basis.

It is no good saying 'Visa are huge they can take the hit' for that is certainly not the approach.

 

Here the £8k has manifested itself in a variety of forms be in assets or holidays meals or paying off other debts.  Its quite simple really if you have that advantage and then be it at the time or now then you say tant pis then whilst it is not theft per se it does indicate the state of ones mind and a clear message that your obligations and which you entered into freely are of little consequence.  I just wonder if the approach would be the same if there was a mortgage and a house hanging on the back of this problem.  For of course cc's are unsecured borrowings.

All the cc's are asking you to do is to match your promise and with positive and not negative deeds.

If of course you cannot genuinely pay the amounts due then surely it is better to be up front and to talk to the companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="J.R."]

40 replys.

The troll has done well!

[/quote]

hi JR as i am new to this i take it a troll is a newbie ???  I did not expect so many varied answers and sorry if i offended any body with this question . just from where i am sitting it seemed to be a question to ask as i have heard of people running from the UK with huge debts and had no come backs and as pointed out if you dont pay the bank back the good folk that pay their bills will cover the banks losses at the end of the day ........ once again many thanks for the replys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL - isn't the use of criminal law to attempt to recover a commercial debt an offence under S43 of the 1970 Administration of Justice Act? If a CC company says "you have stolen our money, you must repay it now or we will report you to the Police" contrary to this act?

Or summat like that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly do not condone what La Roche is suggesting - he signed for the card and agreed to the terms so honour them.

What gets me though, is companies that go bust and people who have paid by credit card get their money back from the card company. The bust company starts up using another name, normally very similar to the original and away they go taking credit cards (which they have an agreement with the card company) until that company goes bust and the next company is set up.

This makes credit superior to cash - and no doubt the loses are recouped by the card companies by higher interest charges to users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i have heard of people running from the UK with huge debts and had no come backs and as pointed out if you don't pay the bank back the good folk that pay their bills will cover the banks losses at the end of the day ........

I think you have missed a key word - no come backs - YET !

.......and remember, if your plans don't work YOU may be one of those 'good' customers paying their bills. 

 It's dishonest and immoral, is that how you want to start a new phase in your life ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said ealier, I have known of several people who have come to France to escape those to whom they owe money, including banks, credit card companies, tax authorities etc. All have moved on after two or three years, or less. I don't know exactly why, but can be almost certain that it is because their creditors have traced them and/or they have built up similar debts in France.

As Gay says, it is dishonest and immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ErnieY"]

[quote user="Georgina"]Why is it some people on here have a desire for status here by publishing their professions???  I do find that a bit suspect.  Also I do not see the need to have a go at the OP as he created an interesting discussion[/quote]

I do not see stating one's qualification to offer advice on a specific point as status seeking, more especially so when it is brought into question.

I'm sure nobody here will accuse you of such intent Georgina if you care to reveal to us your expert qualifications on the subject but if you choose not to then I'm afraid your very own phrase "don't come on here making out you are an expert" will begin to sound somewhat hypocritical.

Attacking such knowledgeable and respected contributors as SD & LL will win you very few friends here.

[/quote]

Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion with a moral dilemma, not making friends.......(although I am not here to wind people up).  Don't you see, I could be Cherie Blair for all you know, for gawd's sake!!!  I do not see many people publishing personal details about themselves.  That would be foolish. And SD I have no doubt your advice is well intentioned and I did not mean to offend you but actually I thought you tone was off too so touche[:)]

 

David said:

"Technically this not THEFT but a Debt.
If, however, the Credit Card/s were obtained Fraudulently and then the Goods were obtained using that/those Cards, then that would Constitute Theft under the Fraud Act, not under the Theft Act.
Just by clearing off to another Country does not mean that the Debt will be absolved. Most Countries have cross border agreements whereby Debtors can and will be pursued. A few countries do not but unless you want to live in North Korea or similar you will/can be arrested and dealt with accordingly.
Basically, it is just not worth it. Better approach the Banks concerned, own up to your problems and it can be sorted. Otherwise you  will NEVER be able to obtain Credit/Morgage etc. in the future.""QUOTE

 

Exactly if it was, then we would have tons of police chasing debtors. A debt is a civil matter not a criminal one, if you walk away from a debt it is not a criminal matter. If you obtain credit by saying that you live in England or have more wages than you actually have, then that is a criminal matter of fraud.  I do not argue that morally it is theft and incidentally, I hasten to add,  I have never done this.

Georgina

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...