Whilst l fully appreciate that this is not really an appropriate platform to delve the depths of ESTA applications, it is relevant to point out that that the Unlock site has a lengthy section on US entry and has a table of offences which potentially require travellers to use the visa route.
This is a short information page about moral turpitude. The aim of this page is to set out a list […]
unlock.org.uk
Interestingly, this page appears to equate "Serious Offences" with CIMT or Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude.
There is a specific entry for railway ticketing offences. In my opinion, rather confusingly written.
Having just read it, it says:
If you have received a FPN then this is NOT a CIMT. If you have been prosecuted in court then this would be dealt with as fraud and IS a CIMT.
I think this web page is outdated because, as mentioned earlier, CIMT isn't the basis for ESTA any more. The questions are:
- Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?
- Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?
- Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage, or genocide?
- Have you ever committed fraud or misrepresented yourself or others to obtain, or assist others to obtain, a visa or entry into the United States?
The last question is arguably the one to consider. I would posit that in the absence of a comma in the first part of this question, the fraud question relates to fraud in order to obtain (or assist others to obtain) a visa or entry to the US.
I would also suggest that a fare evasion offence isn't a conviction for fraud. It's a conviction for not having a valid ticket, and, unlike Fraud Act offences, doesn't require
intent to defraud, because they're strict liability.
If somebody is actually convicted under the Fraud Act for railway offences (exceptionally rare for a whole host of reasons), then potentially if you disagree with my interpretation of the missing comma, it may need declaring. In the absence of an actual fraud conviction though, I don't see why anybody would need to declare a railway bylaws conviction as they stand.
There is of course a practicality to mention here - the US government doesn't have access to the UK's criminal records database. Unless you're on a global watchlist, e.g. you have an Interpol red notice against you, the border officials aren't going to know. Whether you want to risk them finding out and denying you entry/kicking you out (at which point you'll find it incredibly difficult to ever return), well that's a personal decision. If they do start asking questions, forging a railcard's dates and using somebody else's identity isn't going to look very good.
