Replies (6)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
How can
you let someone out on bail after pleading guilty to an £11m money laundering fraud. Words fail me.
tis ridiculous
you let someone out on bail after pleading guilty to an £11m money laundering fraud. Words fail me.
tis ridiculous
If it was train robbery or gold bullion would it be the same? No wonder they have all converted to fraudsters. The moneys better, the risk is lower and it's easy too.
I think the legal term is absconding.
If he is jailed they will let him out for his lunch and will be surprised that he's a few years late returning after being passed to the late lunch recording officer.
Perhaps it's a cunning plan akin to dunking
If you abscond guilty ye be.
hmmmm
4 years for laundering 11.6M...
2.9M per year, ....and crime doesn't pay?
Might I suggest an appropriate term for such financial convictions be based upon the minimum wage at 40 hours per week to pay it off?
Dodgy maths
4 years for laundering 11.6M...
2.9M per year, ....and crime doesn't pay?
Might I suggest an appropriate term for such financial convictions be based upon the minimum wage at 40 hours per week to pay it off?
If he had laundered money (in the traditional sense) he would do so on a 'commission' - he wouldn't get to keep the lot!
Do bear in mind that he is facing further criminal proceedings & very probably confiscation proceedings so it would be optimistic to assume that he will neither have an additional sentence nor be subject to financial penalties.
David
that may be
That may be the case that he received 'commission' but if he were only to have received say £100 for commission would he really have been expected to have been convicted for just £100 or the whole £11.6M?
The whole £11.6M
Judging by David's previous posts on the subject, it is likely that he will end up with a confiscation order for the whole £11.6M. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is likely to be the benefit that he is assumed to have had. If two people had been jointly involved, then they would both have been assumed to have benefited from the whole amount. Confiscation proceedings are not gentle.
So your assumption that the 4 years sentence is the end of the matter is likely to be wrong. Confiscation has always been dealt with separately.