That fraud case

[singe]

I assume Barry has to do a bit of covering his own arse in this.

 

MEN: "He had been brought in because the organisation's finances were in a mess, the court heard."

[Break The Silence]

MEN: "He had been brought in because the organisation's finances were in a mess, the court heard."

Well he certainly got stuck straight in to sorting them ha ha.

[bigfatjoe1]

On a simplistic level, i thought this government was trying to cut the number of custodial sentances (cost-cutting dressed up as liberal thinking). Yet here we have someone who, although he undoubtedly deserves to be punshed, is going to prison for at least 8 weeks over a comparatively low level fraud case. How much has it cost to put him up at Her Majesty's pleasure?

It's a bit over the top. That old couple in Salford who held a young deaf and dumb girl as a slave for 10 years got 13 and 5 years. I know they're old, but ffs what they did was obscene beyond belief. i mean, 5 years!!!! I'm not comparing the cases, but pointing out that sometimes sentancing is a little bizzare.

[Break The Silence]

Anyhow, best get back to defending innocent people victimised by the police :-)

Ha ha, don't set me off again.

[mcgoo_84]

Ha ha, don't set me off again.

It does happen you know! More often than people think!

[Zorrro]

 

Ackey, chill. You had panic beans for breakfast ha ha?

 

All that jellied eels and shandy is pickling your brains. I prefered it when you just swore at us.

:censored: off.

[Ackey]

 

Ackey, chill. You had panic beans for breakfast ha ha?

 

All that jellied eels and shandy is pickling your brains. I prefered it when you just swore at us.

:censored: off.

What that :censored: said!

[Ackey]

 

Oh come on! That's a :censored:ing shambles of a picture! Gutter press!

[Break The Silence]

It does happen you know! More often than people think!

 

"No comment.....boss."

[Twisbrogan]

I'm still reeling from being referred to as 'working class'. I've even got a season ticket for the car park ffs.

[Stevie_J]

For anyone who's interested, here is the Sentencing Guidelines Council Definitive Guideline for the sentencing of fraud offences.

 

I would suggest page 24 is where you want to be looking.

 

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf

 

 

Obviously none of us have the full details of this case, be that the full prosecution case or defence case so I'm giving my opinion based solely on what I know (ie: don't shoot me if more info comes out that casts doubt on what I've said!!)

 

It appears to me that this falls into the category of 'banking fraud', the fact that the offending involves the writing of 6 cheques is catered for in the guideline when you look at the nature of offence column. So he will have been sentenced on the basis of 1 fraud but with the aggravating feature that he did it 6 times. However, that said, the value is key.

 

This seems to slot nicely into the

'Fraudulent from the outset, and either, fraud carried out over a significant amount of time, or, multiple frauds' bracket.

 

Then you look at the starting points & ranges based on value.

 

The value of £2400 puts him in the lowest category that has a starting point of a high level community order but with a range (dependent on the aggravating and mitigating features of the case) of a low level community order to 6 weeks custody.

 

Given that these guidelines are for a 1st time offender, convicted after a trial it appears that the Judge has gone way outside these guidelines.

 

Take into account the fact that he'll have been granted a full 3rd credit for his early guilty plea - we're effectively talking about a case that the Judge deemed worthy of 6 months after trial - which is the maximum custodial sentence you can receive in the Magistrates Court.

 

Is this the worst fraud case ever dealt with by Magistrates? No chance, but that's how the District Judge has sentenced it, or so it appears.

 

To me it seems that there is something that none of is know about, ie: a factor that took it away from a banking fraud, to a confidence fraud (see page 20).

 

If he's sentenced it as a confidence fraud then it appears to be quite a top heavy sentence but within the guidelines.

 

I hope that helps with people's understandings - I know it's quite long winded.

 

As I often tell clients, it's difficult to give a proper comment / opinion on what you may get / what someone should have got without having all the papers in front of me.

I interpreted it as a confidence fraud, given Mike's position as a trustee and his abuse of this position, not to mention his financial expertise.

 

As you say, the six instances mean it's difficult to escape the aggravating factor of the offending being carried out over a significant period of time. Also, the judges comments suggest that the lasting effect of the crime on the Trust (as the victim) has been treated as a further aggravating factor, which is in keeping with the guidelines.

 

Mike didn't help his cause by claiming he was going to pay back the money when a tax return came in. From the judge's comments, no tax return was really expected and, regardless, Mike had the knowledge and experience to understand that this didn't make his behaviour any less wrong, and so this shouldn't be treated as a mitigating factor.

 

Slightly off-topic, the judge seems to have been given the impression from Barry's statement that this money was there to ensure the survival of Oldham Athletic, which is a tad misleading.

[beag_teeets]

I thought that about the picture too, I'm surprised they haven't photoshopped a striped jumper and a bag marked "swag".

[Pine Villains]

the old adage, if he hadn't have been caught, he'd still be doing it.

 

it's not often I say this but well done to the trust team for their investigations, it might not be a lot but it's our money.

[mcgoo_84]

the old adage, if he hadn't have been caught, he'd still be doing it.

 

it's not often I say this but well done to the trust team for their investigations, it might not be a lot but it's our money.

Do we know that for certain? Do we know when the last cheque was written as opposed to when it was discovered? Thought not. There are plenty of occasions where people start to offend & then stop themselves when they realise it's gone too far.

 

Let's not be too hasty eh?!

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Do we know that for certain? Do we know when the last cheque was written as opposed to when it was discovered? Thought not. There are plenty of occasions where people start to offend & then stop themselves when they realise it's gone too far.

 

Let's not be too hasty eh?!

 

^That. Old adages are usually a load of bollocks - condemnation should be limited to what actually happened.

[opinions4u]

Old adages are usually a load of bollocks

They're usually spot on! But whether or not he'd have carried on is not something that can be established one way or the other.

 

condemnation should be limited to what actually happened.

Can't argue with that.

[HarryBosch]

"the organisation's finances were in a mess"

 

What kind of mess exactly?

[Zorrro]

There were 50p pieces down the back of the sofa and Barry had left a fiver in his jeans pocket, which his wife then put in the wash. *sad face*

[garcon]

"the organisation's finances were in a mess"

 

What kind of mess exactly?

 

Given their apparent inability to register me as a member despite me paying my subs (twice), I can only imagine the finances were in a "right :censored:ing proper mess".

 

That was a good few years ago, around the time of the original planning application farce.

[jimsleftfoot]

It looks like the victim is being considered as "vulnerable". The reference to "working class" and "poorer people" is telling.

He was also brought into to sort out the Trusts finances, which were in a state. This indicates vunerability.

[Stevie_J]

 

Given their apparent inability to register me as a member despite me paying my subs (twice), I can only imagine the finances were in a "right :censored:ing proper mess".

 

That was a good few years ago, around the time of the original planning application farce.

Same here.

[jimsleftfoot]

This seems to slot nicely into the

'Fraudulent from the outset, and either, fraud carried out over a significant amount of time, or, multiple frauds' bracket.

 

Then you look at the starting points & ranges based on value.

 

The value of £2400 puts him in the lowest category that has a starting point of a high level community order but with a range (dependent on the aggravating and mitigating features of the case) of a low level community order to 6 weeks custody.

 

Given that these guidelines are for a 1st time offender, convicted after a trial it appears that the Judge has gone way outside these guidelines.

 

Take into account the fact that he'll have been granted a full 3rd credit for his early guilty plea - we're effectively talking about a case that the Judge deemed worthy of 6 months after trial - which is the maximum custodial sentence you can receive in the Magistrates Court.

 

Is this the worst fraud case ever dealt with by Magistrates? No chance, but that's how the District Judge has sentenced it, or so it appears.

 

To me it seems that there is something that none of is know about, ie: a factor that took it away from a banking fraud, to a confidence fraud (see page 20).

 

If he's sentenced it as a confidence fraud then it appears to be quite a top heavy sentence but within the guidelines.

 

I hope that helps with people's understandings - I know it's quite long winded.

 

As I often tell clients, it's difficult to give a proper comment / opinion on what you may get / what someone should have got without having all the papers in front of me.

 

I'm sure I read that he faked a signature on the cheque and use of another persons identity is an additional aggravatting factor. The guidance goes on to say:

 

'The presence of one or more aggravating factors may indicate a more severe sentence within the suggested range while the presence of one or more mitigating factors may indicate a less severe sentence within the suggested range.

The presence of aggravating or mitigating factors of exceptional significance may indicate that the case should move to a higher or lower level of seriousness.'

Edited October 24, 2013 by jimsleftfoot

[mcgoo_84]

 

I'm sure I read that he faked a signature on the cheque and use of another persons identity is an additional aggravatting factor. The guidance goes on to say:

 

'The presence of one or more aggravating factors may indicate a more severe sentence within the suggested range while the presence of one or more mitigating factors may indicate a less severe sentence within the suggested range.

The presence of aggravating or mitigating factors of exceptional significance may indicate that the case should move to a higher or lower level of seriousness.'

 

You're right JLF however, these are the normal aggravating features that you see in most cases of this nature. There's nothing here that I can see that makes this an exceptional case.

 

Especially when you consider it to some cases that I have experience of, of individuals doing exactly the same as Mike Nuttall did, forging signatures on cheques, making them payable to themselves, their kids, when in a position of trust (arguably a position to which a lot more trust was attached) to a value over 20 times that what Mike did - and walk away from the Crown Court with a suspended sentence!

 

In the circumstance Mike was unlucky that he got DJ Qureshi, who is, as a rule, pretty strict, in all cases!

[Diego_Sideburns]

Knowing what I know about the justice system and the good folk in it, I still reckon the main aggravating factor was the district judge's sense that he'd been asked to do something he wasn't especially impressed by, namely read the pre-sentence reports and a thick wad of Barry's English, and hand down a sentence.

Did a badly-constructed sentence lead to a harshly-perceived one?

[garcon]

Did a badly-constructed sentence lead to a harshly-perceived one?

 

That's criminal.