CL Finance/Cohen Claimform - old GE Edge Card Debt

[spamheed]

Given that Identity Theft is a massive subject at the moment, any incident of fraudulent use of documentation would be of great interest to the Police

 

If you can prove catagorically that the document is indeed a forgery, then the police should be called immediately and criminal charges brought against the company directors and any signatories of communications.

 

They would then be forced to prove the validity of the document prior to any country court proceedings and any criminal judgement brought to bear would have a massive bearing on cases brought subsequently by a DCA in the County Court and indeed set a precedent in similar cases

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1968 c. 60.] Theft Act 1968—

 

section 1 (theft);

section 15 (obtaining property by deception);

section 16 (obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception);

section 17 (false accounting);

section 19 (false statements by company directors, etc.);

section 20(2) (procuring execution of valuable security by deception);

section 21 (blackmail);

section 22 (handling stolen goods);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1978 c. 31.] Theft Act 1978—

section 1 (obtaining services by deception);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1981 c. 45.] Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981—

 

section 1 (forgery);

section 2 (copying a false instrument);

section 3 (using a false instrument);

section 4 (using a copy of a false instrument);

There could also be charges of conspiracy to commit the above acts by directors and senior officials, given that the document was sent in the name of their company

[itsamomentintime]

i love a good thriller, me!

[Luminol]

Subscribing and Good Luck !

[pt2537]

Given that Identity Theft is a massive subject at the moment, any incident of fraudulent use of documentation would be of great interest to the Police

 

If you can prove catagorically that the document is indeed a forgery, then the police should be called immediately and criminal charges brought against the company directors and any signatories of communications.

 

They would then be forced to prove the validity of the document prior to any country court proceedings and any criminal judgement brought to bear would have a massive bearing on cases brought subsequently by a DCA in the County Court and indeed set a precedent in similar cases

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1968 c. 60.] Theft Act 1968—

 

section 1 (theft);

section 15 (obtaining property by deception);

section 16 (obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception);

section 17 (false accounting);

section 19 (false statements by company directors, etc.);

section 20(2) (procuring execution of valuable security by deception);

section 21 (blackmail);

section 22 (handling stolen goods);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1978 c. 31.] Theft Act 1978—

section 1 (obtaining services by deception);

 

offences under the following provisions of the [1981 c. 45.] Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981—

 

section 1 (forgery);

section 2 (copying a false instrument);

section 3 (using a false instrument);

section 4 (using a copy of a false instrument);

 

There could also be charges of conspiracy to commit the above acts by directors and senior officials, given that the document was sent in the name of their company

 

 

Hi,

 

its my understanding that the Deception and fraud offences under the 68 theft act have been repealed by the Fraud Act 2006

 

regards

paul

[ODC]

Hi,

 

its my understanding that the Deception and fraud offences under the 68 theft act have been repealed by the Fraud Act 2006

 

regards

paul

You are correct Paul

 

 

 

as per usual:p

[spamheed]

They are listed quite correctly, with the correct references of origin as part of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 Jusrisdiction in respect of Group A Offences.

 

Which you correctly observe were superceded by the Fraud Act of 2006.

which instead states:

 

Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

 

(2) The sections are—

 

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

 

Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

[spamheed]

However, strangely enough the charges of forgery, copying a false instrument, using a false instrument and using a copy of a false instrument are still on the statute books

[pt2537]

Hello Spamheed,

 

you are quite correct that the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act is still in force,

 

i was merely pointing out the repeal of the deception offences under the theft act

[spamheed]

Of course you were entirely correct to identify the reform of the statute, it would be extremely important if any case were to be brought, and I sincerely hope it is

 

I was simply drawing attention to the charges which could be brought, ie forgery with intent/in order to make false representation, which would be identified by their origins in the 1968 theft act.

 

I'm particularly interested in sections 2:a and 2:2b, which one interpretation would make the banks actions of substituting a reconstruction of an agreement for the genuine item an actual breach of the law

[Wonkey Donkey]

what happened next? Need advice myself for exactly the same situation! Please help!