I think I've committed Fraud... Advice please

[Casper18]

Yes I have heard of first impressions. Have you ever heard of not judging a book by its cover?

I am aware that peoples impressions of me were going to be bad considering what I was saying. But I wasn't coming here to ask for forgiveness - just advice.

 

[Ferret]

I just wanted some advice is all.

I know I've done wrong, will try not to do so again, and am generally sorry and dissapointed in myself.

Thank you for all of the help and advice.

Apologies to anyone I have insulted with my story and actions.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by what I have said. None of us here are miracle workers though, and it's probably not possible for us to assist you in avoiding some pretty nasty consequences.

Btw, my comment about job applications was not to infer you are a dole dossing scrounger, more that any application form seems to ask about convictions. My last internal application form asked if I had any convictions I wished to declare!

 

[jon0844]

This is the last post I'll make as I don't want to hijack the thread and have it end up 100 pages long by the end of the day, but whereas I can sometimes accept (costly) mistakes where someone perhaps naively thought they could buy a ticket later on, or at the destination, and get stung - I really cannot think of any circumstances where I can have sympathy for someone that commits fraud!

Sorry, but that's my opinion. Other people might feel differently and help you - so feel free to ignore me totally if you wish. Nothing I've said on here will make any difference to the outcome of any court case or settlement. And I probably have more important things to do this afternoon!

 

[Casper18]

Not to worry. Again, I wasn't asking for forgiveness or a miracle answer - just advice.

Thanks Ferret and all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
jonmorris. I was not asking for your or anyone elses sympathy.

I know and accept that I committed fraud. I just wanted some advice on how to deal with the situation. If you can't or don't want to give me constructive advice, that's fine. And I can understand why you wouldn't want to.

But what you don't need to do is come here and proclaim how you can't be sympathetic, when no-one is even asking you to be.

 

[Ferret]

I wasn't asking for forgiveness or a miracle answer - just advice.

As I say, the only advice I can really offer is to consider seeking some proper legal advice/instruct a solicitor. If it's any consolation, I have heard of situations such as yours not reaching Court but obviously there was a significant sum offered to the train company as compensation to prevent the matter getting that far. It all depends on the Prosecutor employed by the rail company! You are at their mercy I'm afraid.

 

[Casper18]

Okay. Thank you Ferret and thank you for your time.

Have a good day.

 

[Nick W]

I don't see why people have to be so keen to criticise people who come on this forum having committed an offence. These people are the best kind of criminals, having confessed their crime and compliant with the authorities (e.g. giving correct name and address (though sometimes not first time I acknowledge)). They try to play the system and are defeated.

Why can't we simply confirm that they are a criminal, discourage them from every committing an offence again and give them advice on how they can achieve the mutually best rate for them, the TOC and the taxpayer, which in this case is probably a hefty out-of-court settlement?

This type of offence often leads to a Court appearance regardless of any offers to settle out of Court.

You will know better than me. But I would be surprised given they would appear to have nothing to gain from a court appearance. Was there something special about the exceptional cases?

As a general observation, has anyone else noticed how there's always an excuse offered for blatant fare evasion? Seems to be a recurring theme in recent threads.

Fundamentally, we're all by default bad, selfish people. The reason the majority don't commit bigger crimes is because of fear of shame, displeasing or retribution. Of course people are going to give excuses for any crime, because otherwise they'd have to admit they were a bad, selfish person. I include speeding, copyright evasion, dropping litter, parking offences, and other "middle class" crimes, which "everyone does" (the classic excuse). (And yes I am a criminal too.)

 

[Flamingo]

As a general point, a solicitor is paid to offer non-judgemental legal advice, and (at least appear to) accept whatever story is offered to explain the illegal activity, and then advise on the best course of action.

When somebody comes on to an internet forum and looks for (free) advice about how to reduce or avoid the consequences of their illegal activity from some of the people who's day-job is to catch them and make them face up to the consequences of their actions, well they should not expect the internet equivalent of a group hug and immediate unquestioning forgiveness.

Maybe something explaining this should be added as a sticky at the beginning of this sub-forum.

 

[Nick W]

But I think that when you're replying to these posts, you must ask yourself whether your aim is to feel better about yourself (i.e. "I'm not a criminal so I'm better than you") or whether it's to help the posters, taxpayers and the TOC company get the mutually best outcome.

In this case, we want the OP to help the TOC to process the case as quickly as possible and offer a sum to the OP to stump up. The TOC doesn't waste time and money, the taxpayer loses nothing and the OP gets no criminal record. Win, win, win!

 

[Swirlz]

Incidentally, CPS "guidance" to fare evasion, which, as good practice, TOCs and other companies should aim to meet, (although not compulsory to do so), states that in cases like this:

Where tickets have been altered or defaced consider a charge under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Link

From the details on this forum, if I was the prosecuting authority, I would bring a charge under the FCA 1981.

Section (1) The offence of forgery.
A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.


Whilst at least three offences under Railway Byelaws, i.e. 18(1), 20(1) & 20(2) have been breached, the perceived severity of altering a ticket, (obtaining services dishonestly), usually causes a prosecutor to consider more serious criminal (and civil) legislation.

If a TOC is going to prosecute, I would say Section 5(3a) Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

If CPS (BTP) is passed the case, I would say Section 1 FCA 1981.

I think regardless of what charges are brought, a TOC is likely to seek redress in the amount of the (altered) season tickets perceived value.

Could you tell me:

1) Who stopped & cautioned you? (Railway staff, police etc)
2) What is the value of the season ticket you altered?
3) Have you been previously came to the attention of authorities for any similar offences?
4) Did you fully co-operate with the person who cautioned you, and admit liability immediately?

 

[Flamingo]

But I think that when you're replying to these posts, you must ask yourself whether your aim is to feel better about yourself (i.e. "I'm not a criminal so I'm better than you") or whether it's to help the posters, taxpayers and the TOC company get the mutually best outcome.

In this case, we want the OP to help the TOC to process the case as quickly as possible and offer a sum to the OP to stump up. The TOC doesn't waste time and money, the taxpayer loses nothing and the OP gets no criminal record. Win, win, win!

Well, I rarely reply to these posts (I have little interest in helping people who only make my professional life more difficult) but some of the posters who start these threads seem to expect a reception that is not deserved, IMHO. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

[tony_mac]

it doesn't look good, but it may not be a certain prosecution.

Now, I'm aware of a case of season ticket fraud to the tune of four figures which was dealt with out of court. This involved a 'Blue Peter' season ticket (ah, here's one I made earlier!) so this is proof that it is possible to avoid a costly (both in terms of money and employment prospects) conviction.

although that may have been some time ago, and nothing is getting any easier...

 

[Nick W]

They know they've done wrong. They're asking for advice, not to be told they're not a criminal or that the state has it in for them.

This is no worse than people consulting a solicitor, except that there's no discrimination between the rich and the poor.

 

[jon0844]

I really do think that some 'offenders' can often make silly mistakes. Sure, they have no excuse for ignorance in law - but you can at least see why they might have misunderstood or done something silly (possibly simply for being in a rush, which clouded their judgement and priorities). Sometimes there are mitigating circumstances, while at other times it turns out that there are valid defences and staff might have been a bit heavy handed etc.

When you read about someone tampering with a ticket, I don't even consider that to be in the same ballpark!

 

[Flamingo]

They know they've done wrong. They're asking for advice, not to be told they're not a criminal or that the state has it in for them.

This is no worse than people consulting a solicitor, except that there's no discrimination between the rich and the poor.

They know they've been caught. There is a difference.

Why should they not be told they committed a criminal act, and it may be considered unacceptable?

As I said in my earlier post, a solicitor is being paid to adopt a professional role.

By posting in an open forum and inviting replies from forum members who include rail staff who have to deal with them on a daily basis, posters should expect to receive replies that may be critical of their actions.

If they don't want that to happen, then go to a solicitor or CAB.

 

[Nick W]

They know they've been caught. There is a difference.

Why should they not be told they committed a criminal act, and it may be considered unacceptable?

I have no problem with the OP, if he/she doesn't acknowledge already, being told that they are a criminal if they have openly admitted in the first post. It would also be wise to inform them that their excuses do not remove their guilt.

 

[tony6499]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs the only solution now is to see a solicitor who specialises in this sort of case and get some impartial advice.

 

[Swirlz]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs the only solution now is to see a solicitor who specialises in this sort of case and get some impartial advice.

No, it's not.

The best thing for the person involved is to keep their head down until such time as they receive one of the following:

a) A summons
b) A letter from the TOC
c) Contact with the police

No point going to a solicitor at this stage. As soon as you get a letter/summons, take it to a solicitor. Until you get a letter/summons a solicitor won't be much help because he doesn't know what offence is being pursued. Could actually make it worse if they contact the TOC on your behalf and they have "misplaced" your file.

Just hold fire for now.

I have advised what legislation exists, and the penalties for breaching that legislation can be easily found on the internet, (typically mid-large fine, costs, record).
That is all a solicitor can do at the moment as it is all hypothetical.

Just a word of warning for any future "fare evaders", if you get caught, and are cautioned, listen carefully to the caution!!
"No comment" is a perfectly acceptable answer. People tend to become all emotional and say all sorts of things they later regret.

 

[Flamingo]

I have no problem with the OP, if he/she doesn't acknowledge already, being told that they are a criminal if they have openly admitted in the first post. It would also be wise to inform them that their excuses do not remove their guilt.

We agree on that, then

 

[Deerfold]

"No comment" is a perfectly acceptable answer. People tend to become all emotional and say all sorts of things they later regret.

Whilst I'd agree in advising care in what is said under caution, should a case come to court it can be reported that you said "no comment" in answer to questions which tends not to look good.

 

[Ferret]

Whilst I'd agree in advising care in what is said under caution, should a case come to court it can be reported that you said "no comment" in answer to questions which tends not to look good.

The clue is in the caution itself with regard to 'no comment' responses!

 

[Swirlz]

Whilst I'd agree in advising care in what is said under caution, should a case come to court it can be reported that you said "no comment" in answer to questions which tends not to look good.

In my experience it only really affects a case if initially pleading "Not Guilty" and subsequently being found "Guilty".

Section 34 - The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does allow a court to draw an adverse inference from silence/no comment in circumstances as set out in sections 34 to 37 of that Act.

It is likely that a "no comment" interview could be inadmissible, but an inference can be drawn by the court.

But if there's no other evidence then a "no comment" isn't a bad way to go.

 

[Deerfold]

In my experience it only really affects a case if initially pleading "Not Guilty" and subsequently being found "Guilty".

Section 34 - The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does allow a court to draw an adverse inference from silence/no comment in circumstances as set out in sections 34 to 37 of that Act.

It is likely that a "no comment" interview could be inadmissible, but an inference can be drawn by the court.

But if there's no other evidence then a "no comment" isn't a bad way to go.

I don't understand how what you're saying here disagrees with me. If you intend to plead guilty it doesn't really matter what you say in the interview. If you intend to plead not guilty, saying "no comment" to what are usually fairly simple questions looks suspicious.

Why would a "no comment" interview be inadmissable?

 

[snail]

In this case, we want the OP to help the TOC to process the case as quickly as possible and offer a sum to the OP to stump up. The TOC doesn't waste time and money, the taxpayer loses nothing and the OP gets no criminal record. Win, win, win!

Do we? You don't speak for me with this comment. If no one is ever prosecuted for defrauding a TOC by altering a season ticket the message given out is that it's ok to do it. I strongly disagree. The OP may have done it on the spur of the moment, but it's still an offence and one that needs to be clamped down on to discourage other people from doing likewise.

 

[Ferret]

Section 34 - The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 does allow a court to draw an adverse inference from silence/no comment in circumstances as set out in sections 34 to 37 of that Act.

It is likely that a "no comment" interview could be inadmissible, but an inference can be drawn by the court.

But if there's no other evidence then a "no comment" isn't a bad way to go.

Of course when the 'other evidence' is a forged season ticket found in the possession of the accused, a no comment interview won't really help the situation.

To answer a question posed by Nick W earlier in the thread, the reasons for not accepting out of Court settlements are that the matter is deemed too serious and needs to be prosecuted as a deterrent to others! Of course, there is no consistency between TOCs, as my quote from some time ago about a Blue Peter season ticket proves!

 

[W230]

But if there's no other evidence then a "no comment" isn't a bad way to go.

If there is no evidence then yes. But in most of the incidents we see on here there is evidence, and answering "no comment" in these circumstances is often more damaging than giving a random cock-and-bull story because you're failing to account for your actions. It's often because of this evidence that the passenger has been stopped/spoken to in the first place.

I'm sure we had a post the other day where someone said they were asked if they were planning to pay had they not been stopped - their answer "no comment"!

However, I totally agree with your advice in waiting for the summons etc to appear. Not much you can do until then.

I have no problem with the OP, if he/she doesn't acknowledge already, being told that they are a criminal if they have openly admitted in the first post. It would also be wise to inform them that their excuses do not remove their guilt.

Neither do I. People make mistakes/do silly things/behave in dishonest ways and fail to think about the consequence of their actions all day, every day. i know I have. But when you're caught then take it on the chin. Accept it. Don't try and squirm out and dig a nice big hole for yourself making the matter worse. And like in this thread, when the OP says they think they might have committed fraud, there is no point than being anything other than straight and saying. "Yep. You have..."

 

[AM1]

Got to say that this will be interesting to see what happens, I do hope that the op follows up with the outcome. For what it's worth my advice would be not to panic or make any assumptions until the letter comes, nothing you can do or say will make any difference now. My sister didn't have a ticket (innocently and intended to buy one at her destination station I might add) and the letter took 3 months however as this is a case of blatant fraud they might process it more quickly.

 

[sheff1]

As a general point, a solicitor is paid to offer non-judgemental legal advice, and (at least appear to) accept whatever story is offered to explain the illegal activity, and then advise on the best course of action.

When somebody comes on to an internet forum and looks for (free) advice about how to reduce or avoid the consequences of their illegal activity from some of the people who's day-job is to catch them and make them face up to the consequences of their actions, well they should not expect the internet equivalent of a group hug and immediate unquestioning forgiveness.

Maybe something explaining this should be added as a sticky at the beginning of this sub-forum.

This ^^^^

The following point is not aimed the OP in person but is a general one:

I have noticed an increase in traffic on here from people who know they have committed an offence but do not wish to seek paid professional advice and instead are seeking some sort of get out clause for free. I do not believe supporting such people is what this forum should be about, but if some forum members do wish to help then that is clearly up to them ...

 

[Nick W]

Do we? You don't speak for me with this comment. If no one is ever prosecuted for defrauding a TOC by altering a season ticket the message given out is that it's ok to do it. I strongly disagree. The OP may have done it on the spur of the moment, but it's still an offence and one that needs to be clamped down on to discourage other people from doing likewise.

Then perhaps you can start a new topic entitled, what is the right course of action for those caught committing ticket fraud? or should we advise those caught committing ticket fraud? instead of distressing people who post topics asking for advice, as the OP has. This especially applies to those who claim to be suffering from or who claim to have previously suffered from mental health conditions (in a high risk suicide group).

I have noticed an increase in traffic on here from people who know they have committed an offence but do not wish to seek paid professional advice and instead are seeking some sort of get out clause for free. I do not believe supporting such people is what this forum should be about, but if some forum members do wish to help then that is clearly up to them ...

I imagine such people are too poor to pay for professional advice. This forum allows them to receive advice too.

 

[AlterEgo]

Apart from the fact I have not paid for a train journey and purposefully tried to avoid it, you know nothing about me but still feel it is okay to pass judgement.

I bet you won't say that to the magistrates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"No comment" is a perfectly acceptable answer. People tend to become all emotional and say all sorts of things they later regret.

Part of the police caution now includes telling the accused that they are welcome to make no comment, but should they do so, a court may make an inference from that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I imagine such people are too poor to pay for professional advice. This forum allows them to receive advice too.

Indeed - and strangely, had the OP been arrested and brought into a police station, he'd have been entitled to consult with a duty solicitor at no cost to himself.