kjw Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Two RBS bankers have walked away from a £3m property fraud without having to complete jail time because the judge believes they have already "suffered" as they were "embarrassed" by the incident. Raymond Pask, 54, and his employee Andrew Ratnage, 50, established a series of fake companies in the names of Pask's relatives so they could apply for mortgages to buy and renovate homes and then sell them for a profit. The loan applications were submitted to the bankers' employers so they could pass it without drawing attention to themselves. The bankers, who both earned in excess of £100,000 a year, managed to ascertain loans totalling £3m over a five-year period from 2005. With the loans, they managed to buy three properties in London, one in Essex and another in Kent. It has taken since 2010 for the case to come to court, by which time the bankers have managed to repay the loans to RBS, which Judge Rebecca Poulet QC said, along with the embarrassment they have expressed, is punishment enough. She said: "I accept that it was not your intention to cause loss to the bank. I accept you intended at all times for the money to be repaid and it has been fortunate the bank has not suffered. "I have no doubt that both of you have suffered in the time it has taken this case to come to court." Pask has had to deal with a failed marriage in this time and he has had his pension pot reduced to £120,000 he claims he is now "financially ruined". Meanwhile, Ratnage has suffered from poor health including diabetes. [more at link] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/two-rbs-bankers-walk-free-after-committing-3m-property-fraud-1476786 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Is that just bad english, or is the title wrong: Raymond Pask, 54, and his employee Andrew Ratnage, 50 were they RBS employees then or not? If yes, AR was not an employee of RP? I'm also not sure what the offence was? Lying about the property values? Lying about the assets given as guarantee? Sticking your rellies in charge of a company is not fraud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So, if I commit mortgage fraud I can use this case to back me up and save me from jail time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So being embarrassed now saves you from jail?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So being embarrassed now saves you from jail?? Don't be silly, it takes more than that. You have to tell the judge that you always intended to pay the money back as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fully Detached Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Meanwhile the housing market explodes, in part because of the massive wall of cash that fraudsters like this throw at it, and millions suffer from the consequences. Yeah, it's a victimless crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quicken Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Massive liar loans and nobody went to jail... again. Paging Pebble... If I rob a bank and come back a few years later and pay the money back is that OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Masonic handshake or idiot judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Galling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 They were jailed...just suspended, and at least they are cleaning hedges for 300 hours. I think the judge was just chicken. She says there was little risk to the bank...she is probably right, if the market had crashed in 2005, it would have been bailed anyway. And yes, Liar Loans start at the broker, the borrower, the banker, the Investment banker, meanwhile, the fraud falls on the final investors...the Judge sees these as so far away from the street level crime that she says they dont matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Woman in Kirklees this week was jailed for benefit fraud. I'm sure she suffered with the case being taken to Court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 It doesn't say whether they still work for RBS (nothing would surprise with bankers these days) but as the scam started in 2005 in London and the south east once they were found out they wouldn't have much difficulty using part of the property gains to pay back the loans and still make a hefty profit. If they're still working for RBS did they get some nice bonuses to help things along at taxpayers expense as part of the bailout. They claim they're "financially ruined". What's the definition of financially ruined for a UK banker - still pretty wealthy? At any rate the time for bankers remorse is over - Mr Diamond said so in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Don't Judges usually say stuff like "We have to set an example due to the lawlessness of your actions and we have no alternative but to give you a jail term and for you to serve it accordingly" that sort of stuff or at least that's the sort of stuff that the newspapers usually report they say to offenders. If the bankers were financially ruined shouldn't the law for the poor people have applied seeing as there's one law for the rich people and another law for the poor people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opt_out Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 If I rob a bank and come back a few years later and pay the money back is that OK? Yes (If you intended to pay it back from the start). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft Prison may depend on whether you can persuade the jury that you intended to pay it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Woman in Kirklees this week was jailed for benefit fraud. I'm sure she suffered with the case being taken to Court She obviously wasn't embarrased enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspace Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yes (If you intended to pay it back from the start). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft Prison may depend on whether you can persuade the jury that you intended to pay it back. It may be theft to 'borrow' goods, use them, and to replace them with goods of equivalent value. There was a famous case R v Velumyl where it was ruled that a man who borrowed money from his company's safe as an informal loan intending to return it was guilty of theft, as unless he returned the exact same bank notes he took from the safe, he had permenently deprived his employer of the original bank notes. http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Velumyl.php Regarding the RBS case, I suggest we complain to the Attorney General that the sentence is unduly lenient: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Is this anything more than a variant on the First Principle of UK Law? Innocent until proven broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.