Fraud by false representation

[AdamWW]

In another thread WMT were said to have been threatening a proscution for "Fraud by false representation" for someone accused of short ticketing.

Is this a realistic possibility, or are WMT making empty threats in an attempt to scare people?

If the latter, I cannot say that I am very impressed.

 

[methecooldude]

In another thread WMT were said to have been threatening a proscution for "Fraud by false representation" for someone accused of short ticketing.

Is this a realistic possibility, or are WMT making empty threats in an attempt to scare people?

If the latter, I cannot say that I am very impressed.

"Fraud by false representation occurs when someone dishonestly makes a false representation with the intention of gaining something or causing another person to suffer a loss"
(Google AI Summary)
By short ticketing, you are representing that you boarded the train at the station on your ticket, if that is incorrect, that in indeed a false representation which causes revenue lost to the railway.
So no, I don't think it's an "empty threat", but the burden of proof is so high that getting a prosecution for it would be... challenging

 

[Gloster]

I don’t know if this used to be in the standard letter, but if it is new it is possible that WMT are preparing to take a tougher line with fare dodgers or have just upped the fear/take it seriously factor. Or, while not wanting to sound misogynist, it could be a mother worrying about her offspring and going straight to the most worrying part of the letter.

 

[30907]

It does seem to be fairly new, though ISTR other TOCs reference the Fraud Act.

I agree that both are done to make the situation sound more serious, and it's fairly unlikely that the Act would be invoked, but it needs a legal person to give an opinion.

 

[Egg Centric]

It's been in the standard comms for at least a few months now, judging from what we've seen here.

 

[Titfield]

I have it in the back of my mind that when someone is notified that they may be prosecuted in a criminal court, they have to be told the most serious charge they could face or (possibly and) maximum penalty or sanction which could be applied. Hence WMT and others now quoting Fraud by Misrepresentation.

Whilst it could be argued to be disproportionate, this must surely be better than the complaints we see from posters that they were told on the train that all they had to do "was pay the difference in the fare" or they would be getting a letter about it (not mentioning what the letter would actually say and sometimes leaving the passenger with the impression it would be a warning).

 

[Gloster]

I have it in the back of my mind that when someone is notified that they may be prosecuted in a criminal court, they have to be told the most serious charge they could face or (possibly and) maximum penalty or sanction which could be applied. Hence WMT and others now quoting Fraud by Misrepresentation.

Whilst it could be argued to be disproportionate, this must surely be better than the complaints we see from posters that they were told on the train that all they had to do "was pay the difference in the fare" or they would be getting a letter about it (not mentioning what the letter would actually say and sometimes leaving the passenger with the impression it would be a warning).

I believe that you are correct in your first point: no interviewing someone about parking on a double yellow line and then using the interviews’ transcripts after changing the charge to murder. We see a lot of ‘they’re going to fine me a thousand pounds’ because they haven’t read or understood the the letter, just seen the large sum.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have it in the back of my mind that when someone is notified that they may be prosecuted in a criminal court, they have to be told the most serious charge they could face or (possibly and) maximum penalty or sanction which could be applied. Hence WMT and others now quoting Fraud by Misrepresentation.

Has this been referenced or verified anywhere? It would seem to unnecessarily hamstring an investigation which could go anywhere.

 

[The exile]

Has this been referenced or verified anywhere? It would seem to unnecessarily hamstring an investigation which could go anywhere.

Presumably if further evidence is forthcoming that shows you’re guilty of something worse, you can be charged with something worse. What you need to be told is the worst that can happen if you’re guilty of what you’re currently under investigation for.

 

[Gloster]

Presumably if further evidence is forthcoming that shows you’re guilty of something worse, you can be charged with something worse. What you need to be told is the worst that can happen if you’re guilty of what you’re currently under investigation for.

And in that case I don’t think that the police can use the answers in the interviews for the lesser offence as evidence for the more serious one, although it would give them a few hints as to what to ask. Whether they can do anything if the second time around you just say ‘No comment’ to a question that you originally answered more fully, I know not.

 

[The exile]

And in that case I don’t think that the police can use the answers in the interviews for the lesser offence as evidence for the more serious one, although it would give them a few hints as to what to ask. Whether they can do anything if the second time around you just say ‘No comment’ to a question that you originally answered more fully, I know not.

Yes, I imagine that if your defence to short-ticketing put you in the frame for murder (not quite sure how it could!), the short/ticketing interview would be very abruptly terminated!

 

[Titfield]

Has this been referenced or verified anywhere? It would seem to unnecessarily hamstring an investigation which could go anywhere.

No it hasnt but as I said it is in the back of my mind that I had read it somewhere.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Fraud by false representation would be more relevant for fake refund requests/delay repay claims.

It has also been prosecuted in those circumstances.

I think it’d be one hell of a stretch to evidence short faring as fraud by false representation. I suspect it would need to be a really significant case to reach that bar.

I’ve done a quick search and cannot find any cases that have progressed that way, but it is a possible offence.

TOCs will reference it, I suspect, as highlighting the most significant/severe outcome is likely to bring about more responses. Whether that morally sits right is a different question.

 

[AlterEgo]

Fraud by false representation would be more relevant for fake refund requests/delay repay claims.

It has also been prosecuted in those circumstances.

I think it’d be one hell of a stretch to evidence short faring as fraud by false representation. I suspect it would need to be a really significant case to reach that bar.

This is a now famous case of short ticketing prosecuted as fraud by false representation: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...peter-barnett-now-dodges-prison-a2958956.html

 

[AdamWW]

This is a now famous case of short ticketing prosecuted as fraud by false representation: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...peter-barnett-now-dodges-prison-a2958956.html

Does the six month limit for prosecutions apply to fraud prosecutions?

If not, and if we think that a prosecution for fraud is now a realistic possibility, should we stop telling people that after six months they're in the clear?

 

[AlterEgo]

Does the six month limit for prosecutions apply to fraud prosecutions?

No; fraud is triable either way.

If not, and if we think that a prosecution for fraud is now a realistic possibility, should we stop telling people that after six months they're in the clear?

It’s not a realistic possibility; this case was very much the exception. There is a very high evidential bar for fraud, and Barnett handing himself in to the police and confessing is one of the things which make that case very different.

 

[guilbert]

This is a now famous case of short ticketing prosecuted as fraud by false representation: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...peter-barnett-now-dodges-prison-a2958956.html

An interesting aside that he was only required to repay the £5,892.70 based on weekly tickets rather than the £19,689 based on singles Chiltern wanted.

It would be interesting to know what Dr Barnett has been up to in the intervening almost 10 years...

 

[AdamWW]

An interesting aside that he was only required to repay the £5,892.70 based on weekly tickets rather than the £19,689 based on singles Chiltern wanted.

Yes I found that very interesting when I first came across it.

 

[Gloster]

He may have reduced the amount he had to pay, but it got him disbarred both here and, I think, in New South Wales. It also got him a lot of bad publicity and I can imagine a lot of companies saying ‘Thank you and Good Day (or possibly G’day)’ as soon as they realise who he is.

It was said in mitigation or as evidence of good character that he was involved with an African children‘s charity. If so, well and good, but I am always suspicious when charitable intentions only become public when people are nicked.

 

[AlterEgo]

It was said in mitigation or as evidence of good character that he was involved with an African children‘s charity. If so, well and good, but I am always suspicious when charitable intentions only become public when people are nicked.

Why? Surely it’s fine to mention them as evidence of other good character, having done the work quietly and without expectation of reward? Or are you saying it’s a lie? He founded the charity!

 

[Gloster]

Why? Surely it’s fine to mention them as evidence of other good character, having done the work quietly and without expectation of reward? Or are you saying it’s a lie? He founded the charity!

If it has been done quietly for some time, then that is fine and quite reasonable to mention. But there are those who either have a tiny bit of involvement in a charity as an insurance policy and play that involvement up for all its worth when they are in trouble. Or they suddenly get involved in charitable work when the proverbial hits the fan, but then walk away as soon as the need for good publicity has passed.

If he founded the charity, I wonder if the Charity Commission was interested? This was back in the days when the Commission was well run.

 

[crablab]

An interesting aside that he was only required to repay the £5,892.70 based on weekly tickets rather than the £19,689 based on singles Chiltern wanted

One suspects that Chiltern didn't wish to test their assertion, in civil court, that the Anytime Single was the appropriate datum to calculate the evaded fares against.
Even if a legal precedent wasn't created, it would be problematic for future settlement demands if a ruling against them on those ground became public knowledge.
(Although it's notable the judge in the criminal case ruled as they did)