London Oyster Fraud

[Old-CodJA]

Worst case scenario is fraud by false representation and/or theft. If deemed serious enough could result in a prosecution and imprisonment.

 

The fact that you've blabbed it all online will make you relatively easy to find though, cheers.

 

 

I do think we ought to get some sense of scale here. Whilst Bravot may be technically correct in terms penalties upon conviction available to Magistrates for allegations of breaches of some legislation, the reality is that for an offence of this level the threat of imprisonment is so incredibly unlikely as to be non-existent.

 

In the 30-odd years I've been engaged in this line of work, I cannot imagine that any of the hundreds of RP staff that I have met and / or worked with during that time would be likely to attempt to invoke a Fraud Act prosecution for £1. There would have to be evidence of persistent wrongdoing and considerable loss or the prosecutor would be looking at a severe castigation for what might be considered an abuse of process.

 

 

Hello Penguin.

 

I'm not a transport expert, from I've followed this forum for some time now. Fwiw, I haven't seen a case where the OP was pursued for fraud, and we've seen more serious cases than this. Please put prison out of your mind.

 

HB

 

I agree with Honeybee13.

 

From what I can see from reading the thread twice, the OP has not been reported for any offence nor questioned when asking for the fund transfer.

 

Yes, the OPs action may be considered irrational and wrong, but it seems that the transfer was completed without a hitch.

 

If an Oyster card is a simple PAYG card, not registered to anyone, which means it is transferable, the clerk will have made the transfer and probably thought no more about it.

 

 

The summary given by King12345 explains the process perfectly clearly.

[Old-CodJA]

As I said - worst case scenario. it does concern me though that people on here seem to see it as an innocent action?

 

Whether it's 1p, £1 or in this case £6 due to the deposit - it's wrong both legally and morally.

 

 

I agree, I said it is wrong in my post.

 

The action is immoral and it is clearly regretted by the OP, but so far as we know the OP has not been reported for any offence. If any offence were reported it will fall at the very lowest level in terms of the public interest tests.

 

Although we can all do it every day of the week in responding to threads on here, I'm sorry if I upset anyone by saying this, but simply see little point in advising the most frightening possible outcome of a non-existent prosecution unnecessarily.

 

Yes, the Fraud Act [2006] largely focusses on the action of the defendant and it is evident that the OP acted with intention of obtaining something for themselves to which s/he was not entitled, but CPS would not run with such a charge in the scenario posted here and if a Private Prosecutor attempted to do so, a request by the defendant for CPS to review the prosecution would be very likely to see the matter stopped in my opinion.

 

I'm all for letting the OP in any thread know when their actions might result in serious consequences for themselves, but like to try to err on the side of realism in every case.

 

These two sections from the Guidance to Crown Prosecutors (and which we all have to observe) will be of particular importance.

 

9. Diversion from prosecution – dealing with cases out of court

 

When considering the Public Interest in any case, consideration will be given as to whether the matter can be appropriately dealt with out of court. What is appropriate in the circumstances of each individual case will depend on the seriousness of the offence, the results of the offending behaviour, the antecedents of the offender and the likely outcome at court. Where an out of court disposal offers an outcome appropriate to the circumstances of the case, it should be considered and any relevant guidance taken into account. Wherever possible, the views of the victim should also be obtained and taken into account. In cases that are referred to a prosecutor for a charging decision, the CPS may recommend the case is dealt with by a simple caution or a conditional caution if that is considered appropriate.

 

10. Concluding investigations early on Public Interest grounds

 

Generally, Public Interest decisions should not be taken until sufficient key evidence has been obtained to meet the evidential standard. However, there will be cases where it is clear at an early stage that the Public Interest does not (and will not) require a prosecution.

[Old-CodJA]

"To claim what I have done is immoral is quite frankly ridiculous and offensive (in my opinion)"

 

I'll rephrase this: it's not how I would personally have viewed these actions.

If you found £5 on the floor would you give it to charity/someone homeless or would you give it to the police?

 

 

How exactly do you define morality in respect of taking ownership of property then?

 

You knew that the value of that Oyster did not belong to you, but let us look at your own words as quoted below:

 

 

-

I gave the card in, said a friend gave it to me as he was leaving london.

 

I then gave my name (partially, not surname), gave a fake address and signed it.

 

 

By your own admission, you decided to lie and say you were given the card

 

You decided to lie by giving a fake address in what might be considered by some to be an ill thought out attempt to ensure that you were not found out.

 

You clearly recognise this was wrong, otherwise why the apparent remorse, or was your post on here quite simply an exercise in seeking reassurance from others that you have indeed got away with it?

 

You seem to have got away with it, I really am satisfied that it is left at that, but that doesn't make this right in any way shape or form.

 

The really easy thing to do was hand the card in and say 'I just found this Oyster, someone may be looking for it'.

 

Nonetheless this is 'very small beer' so far as the amount of money gained by you is concerned and my fear was for others, perhaps more deserving of help and advice, who might be unnecessarily worried by the thought that the very serious punishment of prison might be awaiting every small offence.

[Old-CodJA]

This is the general guidance used by Police & CPS on this subject:

Stealing by finding:

 

The test must be whether a finder has taken all reasonable steps to find the owner.

 

Depending on the item this could mean simply asking people in the immediate vicinity, or with something like a bank card or similar item with monetary value, having taken steps to hand it in at the police station or bank etc. at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

Whether the finder’s effort to find the rightful owner was or was not reasonable would be a matter for the CPS or the courts if they were charged. The prosecutor might have a reasonable suspicion to proceed, but if after interviewing the finder and making their own inquiries they were satisfied that the finder had acted lawfully that would be the end of it.

 

Simply having enough information to make a report gets nowhere near the threshold needed to actually charge the finder with an offence.