Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Masked Tulip

Businesswoman With Two Homes, 23 Bank Accounts And A Speedboat Fiddled £30,000 In Benefits

Recommended Posts

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was resfused a single penny in any benefits.

From what I can make out many of these stories seem to involve Councils in inner London?

A business woman with two homes, 23 bank accounts and a speedboat has been ordered to pay back more than £200,000 or go to jail after falsely claiming benefits.

Deirdre Hynes, 51 - who runs three businesses - fraudulently claimed £30,000 over nine years including money for those in desperate need of housing after claiming she rented a room as a single person.

A judge described it as one of the worst cases of fraud he had come across involving Croydon Council in South London when she first appeared in court in March.

In March, Hynes admitted 11 counts of making false representations. She was sentenced to 12 months in jail, suspended for 18 months.

Hynes, 51, has a property in Ireland as well as the one in Croydon where she lives and one of her businesses exports tea to Japan.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339533/Benefit-fraudster-homes-speedboat-ordered-pay-200-000-face-jail.html#ixzz18NzMx0HZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was resfused a single penny in any benefits.

From what I can make out many of these stories seem to involve Councils in inner London?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339533/Benefit-fraudster-homes-speedboat-ordered-pay-200-000-face-jail.html#ixzz18NzMx0HZ

Only the tip of the iceberg.

From what I can see, most of our social welfare system for those of working age is fraud of one sort or another.

If you cannot discriminate between honest claimants, and those who seek to defraud, then you shouldnt have the benefit.

Would be nice to see the government get tough over these crimes too. In addition to prison, it should be one strike and you are out. Get caught defrauding, and no more benefits. That includes pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A business woman with two homes, 23 bank accounts and a speedboat has been ordered to pay back more than £200,000 or go to jail after falsely claiming benefits.

Shouldn't the "or" be "and"?

If all they have to do when they get caught is give the money back where is the deterrent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was refused a single penny in any benefits.

From what I can make out many of these stories seem to involve Councils in inner London?

She should be fined and put in jail. What the **** is wrong with the justice system in Britain.

Your benefit refusal clearly demonstrates why Britain is dying. Eventually honest people, like yourself, will just find ways of evading tax. There is no incentive to be honest and I'm so glad I left. It looks like the new government is trying to turn things around but I'll wait and see.

When I lived back there my company paid its taxes on time, every time. Then I got a visit from the cretins at the Inland Revenue. It was petty, involving my car expenses. My accountant said that they Revenue will always try to find something, however tiny, to pay for the cost of the visit. She was spot on, even though the Inland Revenue said it was a 'grey area' and I could fight it. I took a different approach. My accountant knew I rode bikes and suggested we just get our own back, so off I went and bought myself a brand new Honda Fireblade on the company. There was no scale charge on motorbikes. The insurance (about a grand) went through the books and so did all my nice little mods to the bike. I got visited again and the Inland Revenue officer commended me on my 'green' and economic transport! It certainly wasn't economic.

I don't see how the country will survive with a 20% VAT rate. It's telling you to deal in cash and be dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was resfused a single penny in any benefits.

From what I can make out many of these stories seem to involve Councils in inner London?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339533/Benefit-fraudster-homes-speedboat-ordered-pay-200-000-face-jail.html#ixzz18NzMx0HZ

.

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was resfused a single penny in any benefits.

From what I can make out many of these stories seem to involve Councils in inner London?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339533/Benefit-fraudster-homes-speedboat-ordered-pay-200-000-face-jail.html#ixzz18NzMx0HZ

Proceeds of Crime Act................don't do it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the "or" be "and"?

If all they have to do when they get caught is give the money back where is the deterrent?

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act if you do not pay the confiscation order within the time stated by the Courts then you have to serve a sentence in default, the sentence depends on the realisble amount that has been awarded (the confiscation order).

After serving the sentence then you still have to pay the same amount. The original conviction of Fraud is a totally separate matter, although if the confiscation order is on the large side then a Judge will usually take that into account when handing down the sentence, although he really shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 12 months sentence (ie 6 months max in custody) OR £200,000? I know plenty of people who would take the prison term for that kind of cash. In such circumstances the threatened prison term should be suitably severe to ensure the criminal chooses to pay the fine. Personally I think a 5 year sentence would be a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 12 months sentence (ie 6 months max in custody) OR £200,000? I know plenty of people who would take the prison term for that kind of cash. In such circumstances the threatened prison term should be suitably severe to ensure the criminal chooses to pay the fine. Personally I think a 5 year sentence would be a minimum.

Both if she does not pay the confiscation order within the set timetable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the "or" be "and"?

If all they have to do when they get caught is give the money back where is the deterrent?

Absolutely.

I feel another letter to my MP asking the same question. Bl**dy disgrace. There is no justice. Might as well try and screw the system everyone. They've just announced open season on claiming benefits.

EDIT: and just realised 6 months in jail = £200,000. Nice salary folks, who else here earns £400,000 per annum tax free?

Edited by Redcellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the normal posters who say that this sort of crime is ok because the banksters stole a lot more?

??

I think most HPCers think the injustice is more to do with the bankers stole more, but they get away with, or indeed rewarded for, it. My impression of the feeling here is not that this type of thing is justified because of the banksters.

I'm fact benefit cheats rightly get a tough time on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd serve a six month prison sentence for £200,000, where can I sign up?

You can't...........you don't pay you go to prison, then you pay even if you have done the stretch

Just to clarify if you get a 12 months sentance in default you don't do six, you do twelve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the normal posters who say that this sort of crime is ok because the banksters stole a lot more?

Lords and MP's - £14 Million in 'unaccountable' receipt demands in 12 month period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused did she claim £30 000 over nine years or £30 000 a year for nine years.

I only ask because she has been asked to pay back £200 000, if it is the first she never had £200 000 only £30 000 in which case I think its a tad harsh but there is the deficit to pay back.

If it is the second why isn't she being asked to pay back £270 000 plus costs.

Also how the ****** do you get £30k a year out of the benefits system, I presume there are some imaginary kids and a large mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't the "or" be "and"?

If all they have to do when they get caught is give the money back where is the deterrent?

To repay £200k from £30k obtained looks like a real penalty to me.

We should fix the system. Take away the means-testing, and the reward for this kind of fraud just melts away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang her up.

Banging people up costs the taxpayer a fortune. Make them pay several times what they've fiddled, chuck in a load of community service, like sweeping the streets (and make them do it). Taking their passports away until they've paid the lot would be good, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the normal posters who say that this sort of crime is ok because the banksters stole a lot more?

Whilst I have no sympathy for her, I am a little concerned how the Proceeds of Crime Act has been used in this case to effectively charge her 7x what she stole. I'm not a lawyer, but I find it difficult to see how this is commensurate with the "recoverable amount" defined in section 7 of the act. It seems incredibly unlikely that she benefitted a further 170k from her theft of 30k. Chuck her in prison; have legislation in place so she may be fined; but don't abuse the law. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

Edited by Tiger Woods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fills my heart with joy when I read such stories and I reminded of the time when I was off sick and was resfused a single penny in any benefits.

I have no problem claiming "benefits" when I have needed them! After all a few months dole is probably last month's tax bill! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I have no sympathy for her, I am a little concerned how the Proceeds of Crime Act has been used in this case to effectively charge her 7x what she stole. I'm not a lawyer, but I find it difficult to see how this is commensurate with the "recoverable amount" defined in section 7 of the act. It seems incredibly unlikely that she benefitted a further 170k from her theft of 30k. Chuck her in prison; have legislation in place so she may be fined; but don't abuse the law. It makes a mockery of the justice system.

Seems right to me. I think that all criminals who have assets should have them seized, up to ten times the amount of the crime they were done for.

This is because it is a deterrent and a punishment.

And let's face it, they only ever get you for a fraction of your crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems right to me. I think that all criminals who have assets should have them seized, up to ten times the amount of the crime they were done for.

This is because it is a deterrent and a punishment.

And let's face it, they only ever get you for a fraction of your crimes.

Fair enough, if it is the law, but it isn't. This is the problem. The law appears to be being abused, at least from may naive perspective. Just because we find this woman unsympathetic does that mean we should ignore the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the Act allows any subsequent gains to be recovered in addition to the original sum. So, if 10 years ago you illegally acquired £50k and used that as seed money on BTLs to realise £200k of leveraged gains then you'll be chased for the £200k gain plus the original £50k.

This would all be fine if the Act actually required you to be convicted of a crime in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.