Thread: Million Quid Thai Prossie...

Originally Posted by Gilbert

Its funny how the Mail thought it was a good idea to drag her ex husband into the mix. I wonder what his nickname is on ThaiVisa?

No idea, but I'm pretty sure his nickname on TD is 'ShrewedPunter'.

I;m sure his nic was AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Rupert Wanger

I;m sure his nic was AntRobertson

Did you generate a little snot bubble when you giggled to yourself having come up with that real gem?

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Originally Posted by hazz

I was somewhat sup prised at this as 'what is fair' seems to have been at the centre of the decision... nt something you associated with britch judges.

This concept comes from Section 1 of the 1968 Theft Act.

A person has committed a crime if they intend to permanently deprive another person of property whether for their own gain or for the gain of others.

If the recipient of the property acquired the goods in good faith without any intention of depriving the rightful owner of its use then you need to look at the person from whom they obtained the item to see whether it was they who had the intent.

With cash it is invariably the person who initially stole/received it since you rarely part with cash at anything other than face value. Thus if a bank deposits money into your account in error and you keep it, then you are stealing the money. Similarly banking a tax refund which you know to be excessive is also deemed to be theft.

fair comment but...

what I was discussing the the judges resolution of a much more complex issue than did the buyers of the pc's buy stolen goods.

The issue was there were two victims, the first the company from whom the pc was stolen and the buyers who paid money for goods the seller did not own. Two victims with a claim for one stolen item. Who should get to keep the computer, the theft victim or the buyer?

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Did you generate a little snot bubble

Made me laugh Bob!

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Originally Posted by hazz

I was somewhat sup prised at this as 'what is fair' seems to have been at the centre of the decision... nt something you associated with britch judges.

This concept comes from Section 1 of the 1968 Theft Act.

A person has committed a crime if they intend to permanently deprive another person of property whether for their own gain or for the gain of others.

If the recipient of the property acquired the goods in good faith without any intention of depriving the rightful owner of its use then you need to look at the person from whom they obtained the item to see whether it was they who had the intent.

With cash it is invariably the person who initially stole/received it since you rarely part with cash at anything other than face value. Thus if a bank deposits money into your account in error and you keep it, then you are stealing the money. Similarly banking a tax refund which you know to be excessive is also deemed to be theft.

fair comment but...

what I was discussing the the judges resolution of a much more complex issue than did the buyers of the pc's buy stolen goods.

The issue was there were two victims, the first the company from whom the pc was stolen and the buyers who paid money for goods the seller did not own. Two victims with a claim for one stolen item. Who should get to keep the computer, the theft victim or the buyer?

I think think the argument of two victims is flawed. You have victim a. who had computers stolen and victim b. who essentially had money stolen. If there are two victims there should correspondingly be double the benefit for the thief, but there isn't.
The law is clear in their needing to be forewarning or knowledge on the part of the buyer.

The ambiguity in our case came down to a matter of scale and the uncertainty of how a judge would perceive "reasonable" as the scale grew.

There is no specific law that says cash handlers have to query and be satisfied with the source of cash they take. There are AMLCTF laws that touch on the reporting of proceeds of crime or money laundering, but tying them into a criminal case or civil litigation is chancy.

When you report a suspicious transaction to AUSTRAC which many firms do just to be safe. This is federal legislation with harsh penalties for non compliance, so large or seemingly odd transactions from new, and especially unknown sources are often reported, it is a double edged sword.
When asked why you are reporting the transaction you have 6 options, the two most benign are "I don't think the person is who they are claiming to be" and "I think the money may be proceeds of crime".

Having done that there is no feedback or further guidance offered. So if you end up in court and the judge asks "if you thought it might be proceeds of crime, why didn't you report it to police?"
What do you say? Any bookie who kept reporting his punters to police soley on the grounds that they don't know where Mr X gets his money from would quickly piss off the police and lose his business. Getting knew business is crucial, if a guy rings up and wants a $100k on the magpies and the money is in our bank, what rights or powers to we have to question him? Determining legality is a police matter, not a business one.

As I mentioned, our problem was one of scale. He started betting $500 a bet. Peanuts in the grand scale. Soon this rose to $1k. Still not even noticeable. Comes a point when he has become a significant loser, down a few hundred thousand, a nice customer but not anything special.
Then he is down a million, do we stop and demand proof that he is betting with his own money at that point? On what basis? He would just say get fucked and go elsewhere.
As the scale of his transactions went up we even queried with our bank (the same bank he was stealing from) some of his deposits and they confined they had no issue.

It was a whole grey area of law that no side wanted to trust to a pro or anti gambling judge.

Originally Posted by hazz

They had bought the PCs at a fair market price under the circumstances, demonstrating they had no reason t suspect that the computers were stolen.

That is interesting. I always thought that a buyer who found he had bought stolen goods, even in good faith, stood to lose the property if it turned out to be stolen.

If you buy a car in Aussie and it has finance on it then as far as I know it is your loss. The vehicle is encumbered and you failed to check.

The rules around theft of money are also interesting. If you steal cash and then deliberately lose it to a betting organisation with whom you are in cahoots before fleeing overseas then it seems like the original victim would have to prove the collusion before they could pursue their claim to recover money from the bookie who then holds it.

I wonder if it makes any difference if the money is in the form of the original physical notes that were stolen (say the original victim had a note of the bill numbers) so the theft is of physical property rather than digital money.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by hazz

They had bought the PCs at a fair market price under the circumstances, demonstrating they had no reason t suspect that the computers were stolen.

That is interesting. I always thought that a buyer who found he had bought stolen goods, even in good faith, stood to lose the property if it turned out to be stolen.

If you buy a car in Aussie and it has finance on it then as far as I know it is your loss. The vehicle is encumbered and you failed to check.

The rules around theft of money are also interesting. If you steal cash and then deliberately lose it to a betting organisation with whom you are in cahoots before fleeing overseas then it seems like the original victim would have to prove the collusion before they could pursue their claim to recover money from the bookie who then holds it.

I wonder if it makes any difference if the money is in the form of the original physical notes that were stolen (say the original victim had a note of the bill numbers) so the theft is of physical property rather than digital money.

The point with property that can be encumbered is that you have a way to check that is independent of the seller and has no repercussions on the seller. The finance companies have made sure of this.

Cash vs Ecash is same same, with the exception of Ecash being more easily followed by the Authorities.

It is difficult to "deliberately" lose to a bookie in a way that is not clearly identifiable. In fairly framed markets all bets are equally weighted and all bets equally bad.

Its strange why would you inform every man and his dog that you spent all the money on one lady, sure his wife won't be around when he comes out.

maybe its stashed somewhere else and the Thai lady got a cut.

Would you go to court with your partner if you know they have been shagging allsorts behind your back?

^As I said, the chap had to tell the court were the money went to avoid an enhanced sentence for hiding the cash, its the journalists attending the case that decided to inform everyman and his dog.

The case I mention is a little different as its UK law rather au maybe differences, but yes usually the person who suffers the theift gets the property rather than person who bought it. Thats why I remember this case as it was different.... suggesting that judges have discretion over the matter.... I guess the negligence issue that mitigated the judges decision.

sorry to say this nec, if your case had gone court and i'd been your judge my inner git would ahve taken the view that you chaps made a bet that the customer was kosha, lost it and are bookies bitching about loosing a bet and paying out.....
I know its not that simple.... but I was refering to my inner git.... whos not a very sympathetic or nice chap.

Originally Posted by hazz

my inner git

You're GuyinThailand as well Hazz....

(Sorry...couldn't resist......)

He could have infested that £2m offshore and went on the run with a new passport..

He could have been whoring it up for the rest of his days