Bride steals £200k to fund wedding & lifestyle
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-18...
A few pies purchased as well, methinks.
h 
A few pies purchased as well, methinks.
pissed off director said:
Company director Peter Sutton said Lane had cost the firm about £300,000, due to tax and VAT payments, and put the "livelihoods of 20-plus people" in jeopardy.
Selfish fat bh 
Don't worry though, she got 20 months, that'll learn 'er!
Alternatively, one could wonder whether ten months of internment (like to be ten after good behaviour) in return for £200k actually represents excellent value for money for someone like her. After all, how long would it take to earn that after tax for someone of her earning power? As long as she's spent it all, then she can't pay it back... Winnah!
Alternatively, one could wonder whether ten months of internment (like to be ten after good behaviour) in return for £200k actually represents excellent value for money for someone like her. After all, how long would it take to earn that after tax for someone of her earning power? As long as she's spent it all, then she can't pay it back... Winnah!
As usual with these cases of theft , no mention of them actually having to pay back the money. Does anyone ever pay back the cash in cases like this and the almost daily coverage of benefits cheats.
Why do i get the feeling theres a large chunk of people in the country who actually think its right she should keep her home, and would almost think it not fair to sell off her stuff down to the bare minimum for her to live.
Why do i get the feeling theres a large chunk of people in the country who actually think its right she should keep her home, and would almost think it not fair to sell off her stuff down to the bare minimum for her to live.
roadsweeper said:
Don't worry though, she got 20 months, that'll learn 'er!
Alternatively, one could wonder whether ten months of internment (like to be ten after good behaviour) in return for £200k actually represents excellent value for money for someone like her. After all, how long would it take to earn that after tax for someone of her earning power? As long as she's spent it all, then she can't pay it back... Winnah!
Most likely she'll spend just over 6 months inside, then the period up until the halfway point (10 months) tagged on curfew at home, then the remaining 10 months released on licence.Alternatively, one could wonder whether ten months of internment (like to be ten after good behaviour) in return for £200k actually represents excellent value for money for someone like her. After all, how long would it take to earn that after tax for someone of her earning power? As long as she's spent it all, then she can't pay it back... Winnah!
Seems quite lenient when you look at it, doesn't it?
10 Pence Short said:
Most likely she'll spend just over 6 months inside, then the period up until the halfway point (10 months) tagged on curfew at home, then the remaining 10 months released on licence.
Seems quite lenient when you look at it, doesn't it?
I agree, ~6 months inside in exchange for 200k doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. Seems quite lenient when you look at it, doesn't it?
I've dealt with a few of these kinds of offences (frauds, drugs, large scale criminal enterprises, money laundering, etc). Where there is a "benefit", the court can order repayment of such a benefit (the court determines the amount). If the amount ordered isn't repaid, there is usually an additional custodial sentence. And the "benefit" still has to be repaid. If the defendant doesn't have any assets, the order can remain until as and when they DO accrue assets, which are then used to repay the benefit figure.
As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
Dibble said:
I've dealt with a few of these kinds of offences (frauds, drugs, large scale criminal enterprises, money laundering, etc). Where there is a "benefit", the court can order repayment of such a benefit (the court determines the amount). If the amount ordered isn't repaid, there is usually an additional custodial sentence. And the "benefit" still has to be repaid. If the defendant doesn't have any assets, the order can remain until as and when they DO accrue assets, which are then used to repay the benefit figure.
As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
That makes a great deal more sense. As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
Dibble said:
I've dealt with a few of these kinds of offences (frauds, drugs, large scale criminal enterprises, money laundering, etc). Where there is a "benefit", the court can order repayment of such a benefit (the court determines the amount). If the amount ordered isn't repaid, there is usually an additional custodial sentence. And the "benefit" still has to be repaid. If the defendant doesn't have any assets, the order can remain until as and when they DO accrue assets, which are then used to repay the benefit figure.
As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
It would be interesting to see what POCA could recover from her.As a guide, if you use drugs money to buy a "bent" £25,000 Mercedes for £5,000, your benefit isn't £5k, it's £25k. POCA legislation is very useful in these kinds of cases.
As far as I can see it, her previous employers are entitled to commence Civil Proceedings to recover their losses, in which case the court can hold back recovery under POCA rather than feel compelled to make an order. With regards to recovering property, what effect does it have in relation to her not having a "criminal lifestyle"? The court would be unable to make a presumption that any property obtained was as a result of criminal activity. Would this preclude them effectively ordering a house be sold to make good the amount demanded, or would they be able to order it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff