Fraud and Theft
When faced with the prospect of having to defend yourself against this type of criminal allegation it is vital you have a legal team that understands this increasingly complex area of law. There may be significant ancillary issues that need to be considered, along with the substantive allegation. You may be a professional with a significant media profile that needs to be protected and managed. You may be deployed in a role subject to e.g enhanced DV vetting. You may be one of many professionals regulated by your professional body.
Whether it is professional, reputational or disclosure issues that concern you most about the allegations of dishonesty made against you, it is essential you receive pro-active advice at the earliest stage.
You may not yet have been asked to attend an interview under caution, but believe an investigation is under way. If this is the situation you find yourself in, what is said and done during this time can impact significantly on direction of travel an investigation may take. You will need advice regarding disclosures being requested of you. Many professionals feel compelled to make disclosures that are entirely without justification, as they have not been supported from the outset. If you have been requested to attend an interview under caution as a volunteer, it is essential you been fully advised before entering that arena.
The private criminal team at Penman Sedgwick will take a holistic approach to sensitively deal with your particular legal issues. You will be reassured that the evidence will be examined forensically by senior lawyers experienced in this specialist field. You will then feel confident that your case will be forcefully presented to achieve the desired outcome.
Fraud Defence Case
R .v. O
St. Albans Crown Court
St. Albans Crown Court
The Defendant was charged with committing fraud in that, dishonestly and intending to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another, or to expose another to risk of loss, he made a false representation, which was and which he knew was or might be untrue or misleading, namely that, in an application to a Bank for a mortgage advance in the sum of £618,750 in respect of a property, in breach of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
The sentencing guidelines for Fraud, prescribes as the determinants of seriousness, include the `value of property or consequential loss involved` The custody range is between 2-6 years.
A Goodyear application based on all the facts of the matter was submitted to the Court, and on the basis thereof, the Defendant pleaded Guilty.
At sentence, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months custody suspended for 24 months and an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours.