Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Knimbies who say No

Inchoate offence reporting

Recommended Posts

Ok,

Someone told me, several years ago, to destroy paperwork evidence of financial assets upon their death, ie hiding the assets from their future estate, I guess this is incitement of some description. They put themselves 'on the record' as making the 'instruction' (their word). I was/am unwilling to do so. The person is making a nuisance of themselves now and I'd like to report this officially. The instruction occurred in mid 2008.

How do I go about reporting this? Walk into a police station? The person in question is a resident of Scotland, I live in England. Do I need to call someone up norf?

 

edit Thanks in advance for any info. It's a crap situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ccc said:

No idea but I doubt they will be remotely interested.

This is my fear. The issue is that there is an upcoming civil court case centring on the assets whose existence was to be erased if the instructions were carried out. It seems relevant. I dunno how the civil and criminal interact in such circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone else maybe end up doing this after you refused ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ccc said:

Did someone else maybe end up doing this after you refused ?

No, the person who issued the instruction is still alive. They gifted someone some money, undocumented as far as I can establish from the recipients, then years later changed their mind and created some 'loan' documentation for the funds, the sweetener apparently being that the documents would be destroyed in any case, so still a gift really, my daughter, as I won't need the loan repaid. Except now they want to call in the funds, using the loan paperwork they created. Dodgy as sin in my view.

Will the instruction to destroy the paperwork have any effect on what appears to be a civil case? Would the prospect of a criminal investigation and possibility of a conviction change a person's mind about whether to pursue their civil action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IME calling 101 will be a waste of time in this case (as opposed to generally, it's a reasonable service) as they are call handlers taking details to pass onto the police (who are unlikely to understand either) rather than legal experts; you need to talk to a decent solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or somehow get in contact with the police division that deals with financial crime etc

They will no doubt have knowledge of this stuff.

Contacting them though - good luck !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were you I'd take proper legal advice before doing anything at all.

HMRC may be interested (dependant upon the exact circumstances), but going over the full details with a solicitor before contacting them would be wise. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

If I were you I'd take proper legal advice before doing anything at all.

HMRC may be interested (dependant upon the exact circumstances), but going over the full details with a solicitor before contacting them would be wise. 

 

 

Well, quite. It seems farcical on one level that a person could avoid any criminal consequences of an action which on the face of it it worthy of investigation, but then benefit in a civil court from the same.

 

Justice, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Well, quite. It seems farcical on one level that a person could avoid any criminal consequences of an action which on the face of it it worthy of investigation, but then benefit in a civil court from the same.

 

Justice, eh?

Who was involved in making the 'dodgy' paperwork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SarahBell said:

Who was involved in making the 'dodgy' paperwork?

The same person who instructed its destruction. Edit if you mean lawyers or other qualified types, then no one. It was a homebrew effort it seems.

 

Person A gives persons B some money, as a gift. Not documented as such.

 

Some years later, person A changes their mind, creates some 'loan' paperwork and attempts to get B to sign it, with the 'sweetener' that C will destroy the paperwork upon Person A's death.

Some years after this, Person A now decides to call in the 'loan' to B. Person A has happily put themselves on the record, in writing, that they issued the instructions  to C to destroy the paperwork relating to this 'loan'.

Person A has far more financial resources at their disposal than B and C.

Does B stand any hope of getting access to the potential of justice, or do they pony up and forget about it? The sum involved is in 5 figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

The same person who instructed its destruction.

 

Person A gives persons B some money, as a gift. Not documented as such.

 

Some years later, person A changes their mind, creates some 'loan' paperwork and attempts to get B to sign it, with the 'sweetener' that C will destroy the paperwork upon Person A's death.

Some years after this, Person A now decides to call in the 'loan' to B. Person A has happily put themselves on the record, in writing, that they issued the instructions  to C to destroy the paperwork relating to this 'loan'.

Person A has far more financial resources at their disposal than B and C.

Does B stand any hope of getting access to the potential of justice, or do they pony up and forget about it? The sum involved is in 5 figures.

succeeded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SarahBell said:

succeeded?

No signature, but B suggested in some correspondence that the draft agreement looked OK, but this was before they were aware of the significance of the gift/loan distinction. Basically it seems B was leant on, and may have been swayed to a version of events which doesn't really fit with events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There needs to be hard evidence of a crime or someone actually admitting stuff for any conviction.

Any he said she said stuff will go nowhere.

The lawyer will just tell anyone accused to keep their mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DEATH said:

There needs to be hard evidence of a crime or someone actually admitting stuff for any conviction.

Any he said she said stuff will go nowhere.

The lawyer will just tell anyone accused to keep their mouth shut.

The person who issued the instruction to destroy paperwork put it in 'writing', twice, and confirmed they did so. They described it as an 'instruction', in their own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, drunkincharge said:

Is there any offence in destroying paperwork that only benefits the person wishing to destroy it?

 

Not sure I understand you.

In this case, person A is instructing someone to destroy evidence of assets, ie defraud their estate, which could result in creditors or beneficiaries, including HMRC, receiving less than would otherwise depending on the exact circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

 

Not sure I understand you.

In this case, person A is instructing someone to destroy evidence of assets, ie defraud their estate, which could result in creditors or beneficiaries, including HMRC, receiving less than would otherwise depending on the exact circumstances.

I thought your contention was that it does not document a valid legal claim. It's a tricky proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

Well, quite. But Person A is going to court on the basis it is a valid legal claim.

Well submit an affidavit to the court outlining your understanding of events. Or if you're hoping to prevent it getting that far, warn him you'll be doing so, and that if he makes statements which are later shown to be false he'll be guilty of perjury and subject to criminal sanction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

Well submit an affidavit to the court outlining your understanding of events. Or if you're hoping to prevent it getting that far, warn him you'll be doing so, and that if he makes statements which are later shown to be false he'll be guilty of perjury and subject to criminal sanction.

I suppose it's more about whether it is relevant to the case. His admission is summarised in a document he himself produced, including exact dates (he did it twice). He's not very smart, but has a lot of money. The asymmetric nature of the risks of losing are the main concern for person B. Person A loses some chump change, person B might lose everything they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm not understanding but .....

Person A has given money to Person B

Person A has subsequently changed their mind, decided the money is a loan and prepared a retrospective draft loan agreement to support this

Although Person B has commented on the draft, they have not signed a loan agreement

To successfully bring a civil case A, would have to prove (i) the money was always a loan (ii) B was aware of this, (iii) agreed to the terms of the loan and (iv) failed to abide by them.

As you have documentary evidence (i) above is false, it's difficult to see how a small-claims application would make it to a hearing and if taken to a higher court why a solicitor or barrister would take the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.