Crime Does Not Pay?

[EDDIE51]

Crime does not pay! or so we are told.
But I often wonder when I read items like this
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/03/worker-stole-nearly-500000-of-council-funds-to-pay-for-lavish-wedding
The judge said '' I understand you have spent all you stole so there is nothing to repay.'
She got 3 1/2 years, meaning she will be out and free in less than 2 years, not bad for £446,000 !
I actually know a man who stole £40,000 from a building society , spent the lot, then handed himself it and got 10 months.
He was working as an evening cleaner at a building society, one night he went in to clean the office and found the safe door had been left wide open.
He picked up a bundle of £20 notes and walked out with them.
Then he got on a coach to Blackpool , booked into a B&B and just stayed there spending like a millionaire until the cash ran out.
He came back home and went to the police and handed himself in.
He pleaded guilty and got 10 months,so was out in 5 months. He says it was worth it.
So does crime pay?

[ummmm]

I thought they seized assets? Surely the council workers house will be seized.

[Neveracrossword]

There's another thread about this - just in case you think no-one is interested! It was called 'The Tip Of The Iceberg'.

[EDDIE51]

ummmm to confiscate it they have to PROVE the house was bought with the proceeds of crime. They may be sure it was but actually proving it is a different matter.
I suspect they gave the money to relatives who then paid off the mortgage for them making it impossible to actually prove it was the stolen money that paid for the house.

[ummmm]

Me and my boss were talking about stripped assets only yesterday. Someone we know is in prison and he's had everything taken. I very much doubt the money went into his current account.

[EDDIE51]

The woman in the story and my mate both had the sense to spend all the cash and not put any in a bank, so there was nothing that could be done to reclaim / seize it.

[ummmm]

And I'm guessing the person I know dealt in cash also. He got 20 years though so I doubt he'll be bothered about his seized cars when he gets out...

[Peter Pedant]

// ummmm to confiscate it they have to PROVE the house was bought with the proceeds of crime. They may be sure it was but actually proving it is a different matter. //

not sure about that one

Proceeds of crime act - under certain circumstances they can 'deem' an asset to have been bought c dirty money and you have to prove it aint ....

I was asked to show I wasnt related to the seller of a house then in chokie and since I bought it at a bankruptcy sale I felt they really should know ....

fort he house - if he can show that he bouvht it before he stole the money he should be OK

[EDDIE51]

From reading the story I am sure they had bought the house before the crime the mortgage was paid off afterwards. We do not know how much was paid from the crime.

[sandyRoe]

If money became available to pay off a mortgage wouldn't it be reasonable to ask where it came from?

[Hypognosis]

If family members paid off the mortgage, we should ask why they did not show this inexplicable generosity in the weeks and months *before* the funds went missing.

A child could work this out, why can't the justice system?

Unless it has been specifically shaped to allow a certain sector of society to get away with stuff that we plebs can't similarly get away with?

[jim360]

I'm sure everyone involved in the legal system can "work it out" but that's not enough to prove it. It sucks if true, though.

[EDDIE51]

^^jim has it, everyone is sure the mortgage was paid with the stolen cash but proving it would be very difficult.

[Svejk]

Strip them, and their partners in crime, of all assets and deport them.
If you did something similar in shittistan you'd be lucky to come out with your life intact, never mind smelling of roses.

[Hypognosis]

Proving it should be no more difficult than compiling a list of 'helper' relatives (friends too, if applicable) and submitting their bank accounts to scrutiny.

The mortgage company would almost certainly only accept major transfers in electronic form so cash handovers would inevitably leave paying-in traces.

I would throw in the phrase "joint enterprise" but that has a special definition and deals with violent crimes, so is not appropriate here, I reckon.