SNACR

Judge Lets 23 Yr Old Burglar Keep £85K The Filth Found In His Kitchen

21 posts in this topic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125588/Car-loot-Burglar-told-85-000-convincing-judge-earned-selling-junk-car-boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

Edited by Soon Not a Chain Retailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2125588/Car-loot-Burglar-told-85-000-convincing-judge-earned-selling-junk-car-boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

+1

Brunettes and Red Heads are where its at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Brunettes and Red Heads are where its at

Are Red Heads what used to be called Gingers before the slick men in suits from marketing got their hands on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Red Heads what used to be called Gingers before the slick men in suits from marketing got their hands on them?

No i believe Gingers are known as Strawberry Blondes in marketing speak, i wouldnt rattle ccc with yours

Edited by Georgia O'Keeffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the article it seems that Hampshire Police applied for a cash forfeiture order under POCA. Recent case law has stated that if a cash forfeiture is applied for then the prosecution must show that the cash came from specific criminal conduct on the balance of probabilities.

In this instance the Courts were right not to allow the forfeiture as Hampshire Police could not show that the amount seized directly related to the offence for which the defendant was convicted. Poor form by Hampshire, they need to keep up with developments in POCA case law, which is very fluid.

Edited by Mr. Miyagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

There was someone here on HPC who had to go to their MP to get their gold back from the police.

Edited by Take Me Back To London!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

There was someone here on HPC who had to go to their MP to get their gold back from the police.

Without going into too much detail that is not entirely correct. The MET managed to secure all of the assets seized in the operation from those who could not provide reasons that the items were legitimate.

Edited by Mr. Miyagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

I seem to recall one was in somewhere like Golders Green and the Met got all excited they'd got a load of gold from criminals.

Rather predictably it turned out it mostly belonged to holocaust refugees who'd fled with it after a fascist police state had tried to wrest it from them once already.

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the article it seems that Hampshire Police applied for a cash forfeiture order under POCA. Recent case law has stated that if a cash forfeiture is applied for then the prosecution must show that the cash came from specific criminal conduct on the balance of probabilities.

In this instance the Courts were right not to allow the forfeiture as Hampshire Police could not show that the amount seized directly related to the offence for which the defendant was convicted. Poor form by Hampshire, they need to keep up with developments in POCA case law, which is very fluid.

Is there an incentive for the police to try and seize this cash - either targets or direct benefit to force finances?

Without going into too much detail that is not entirely correct. The MET managed to secure all of the assets seized in the operation from those who could not provide reasons that the items were legitimate.

This seems very grey though. Could, for example, British aristocracy prove ownership of art treasures and would the British Museum struggle with the Elgin Marbles. It seems to be effectively saying everyone must have a paper trail from post-tax income for all their possessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...boot-sales.html

(Sorry I know Mail stories are out of favour)

Basically, as per title - although it looks like a good chunk of it was actually in a Nationwide savings account.

Now, I don't doubt this is most likely gained nefariously. However, I think the judge is quite correct that just because he's been caught engaged in burglary it cannot just be assumed anything else in his possession was obtained in this manner unless there is proof.

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

I think DM readers are beginning to feel a bit like mugs for paying taxes because by the comments they seem very unhappy he won't have paid any on this money but, if (obviously a big if but unless it can be proved otherwise) it was acquired from car boot sales over a number of years I think they'd be disappointed with the size of the actual liability - excluding penalty fines.

I just don't like it. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'you're not behaving as we expect the average UK adult/Mail reader to behave therefore you're up to no good' - this leads to a sort of Minority Report world where if the police seize your laptop and your internet browsing history doesn't feature the average amount of page views for busty blonde women then you must be a nonce.

There may be a genuine issue buried somewhere in there, but sadly the source is a DM story and therefore unadulterated guff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

What a legend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall one was in somewhere like Golders Green and the Met got all excited they'd got a load of gold from criminals.

Rather predictably it turned out it mostly belonged to holocaust refugees who'd fled with it after a fascist police state had tried to wrest it from them once already.

Another amusing one was that Mr Trebus, in some TV documentary, who compared the local council to nazi concentration camp guards when they tried to curtail his OCD hoarding. They got very upset and chastised him for using inflammatory racist language inevitably a furious back-pedalling was required when it transpired he was uniquely qualified to assess concentration camp guard like behaviour having survived being an inmate in one.

Thank you for this post.

I never knew Mr Trebus had spent time in a concentration camp. He is a man I have a lot of respect for, may God rest his soul.

OCD hoarding is IMO a natural reaction to unnatural living conditions. I knew that hoard due to previous loss, but with Mr Trebus's habit being mentioned I feel that I understand it more.

The TV documentary would have been a bbc one one; 'a life of grime'///

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also seems to be the thin end of the wedge in a disturbing police trend of assuming that anyone holding large, particularly cash but also, bank savings, is potentially engaged in criminal activity.

Surely by the same argument, we should dispense with all the money-laundering checks we have in the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an incentive for the police to try and seize this cash - either targets or direct benefit to force finances?

Yes there is. Hampshire would have got half the forfeiture order, but in fairness many forces plough back the money into community projects and policing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely by the same argument, we should dispense with all the money-laundering checks we have in the system?

Probably.

This guy had thousands in the Nationwide so it wasn't uncovered until he had an actual brush with the authorities.

I get the feeling they're like airport security checks carried out by staff in a perfunctory manner without sentience inconveniencing the law-abiding, upon whose general support the authorities rely most on to assist them, and only of benefit to officious staff who like a power trip.

I bet Bin Laden could have put £100k cash in the average High St bank as long as he had an electricity bill and a driving licence with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Brunettes and Red Heads are where its at

You are a nonce and I claim my £5.

Expect knockers at the door any minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As law and order begins to collapse in a society, (because the rich stop paying taxes essentially), the police force gradually morphs into highway robbery. First fines increase, then become arbitrary, then become outright demands for money with menaces.

This is what happened in Argentina in the 1999 collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the article it seems that Hampshire Police applied for a cash forfeiture order under POCA. Recent case law has stated that if a cash forfeiture is applied for then the prosecution must show that the cash came from specific criminal conduct on the balance of probabilities.

In this instance the Courts were right not to allow the forfeiture as Hampshire Police could not show that the amount seized directly related to the offence for which the defendant was convicted. Poor form by Hampshire, they need to keep up with developments in POCA case law, which is very fluid.

I would imagine HMRC will look very carefully at this case. If he has amassed over £150,000 (£85k cash, £60k bonds, + Nationwide account) over 10 years he will have a healthy tax liability, and whatever fine HMRC decide to levy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back the police broken into 2 safe deposit company vaults that had not complied with the new FSA regulations. The police broke into nearly 7,000 boxes regardless of the owners and they wanted proof of ownership of contents, however the Met police were hit with a lot of law suits and lost. There were things like cash and gold being found in boxes and the presumption was it was stolen etc. You expect to find things of value in a safe deposit boxes, that is the reason in having them.

There was someone here on HPC who had to go to their MP to get their gold back from the police.

I like it.

If we take it to a logical conclusion, and I'm walking through the town one night, are we saying I might need to prove ownership of my shoes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POCA has been hideously abused. It's a civil recovery, so no legal aid - you're on your own if you're poor, and no translation if you're foreign and poor. The standard of proof is "balance of probability" not "beyond reasonable doubt" and the POCA act is probably unconstitutional, violating the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Of course nice English-speaking middle class people are not affected, so let's not worry about it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now