CLARE’S IGNORANCE OF HER OWN COUNTRY’S LEGAL CODES
III. “SIMILAR, BUT DIFFERENT.”
II. “WHICH ONE IS IT?”
I. “NOT TRIABLE IN THE UK.”
III. “SIMILAR, BUT DIFFERENT.”
“For this reason we treated Cullen’s approach as suspicious throughout.
“To repeat, Sarawak Report published only what had already been stated in court and then already printed in the Malaysian media. We did not quote what Cullen Johnson had Skyped to us, which had been similar.”
– Clare Rewcastle Brown, January 10, 2015
(‘A Truly Ugly Story — Theft, Hacking and Smear Tactics.’ — Sarawak Report, January 10, 2015)
UK FRAUD ACT 2006 2 Fraud by false representation
(2) A representation is false if —
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and;
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of —
(a) the person making the representation, or;
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any systemor device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
(TOPIC / FRAUD ACT 2006 — Nine Questions for Sarawak Report, August 15, 2015)
II. “WHICH ONE IS IT?”
“I am still unclear whether the agents of the Prime Minister are accusing me of “forging false documents” or obtaining documents through “criminal leakages”, since they have simultaneously accused me of both in the past few days…“They need to make up their minds about this before they bring their charges and they really ought to produce some substantive and convincing evidence of their other accusation that I am part of some international plot intent on falsely accusing the Prime Minister of crimes for reasons unknown.”
– Clare Rewcastle Brown, August 4, 2015
(Arrest warrant for S’wak Report editor — Sarawak Report, August 4, 2015)
[RELATED: CURRENT / THE JUSTO CONFESSION ON THE STRAITS TIMES OF SINGAPORE, July 24, 2015]
UK FRAUD ACT 2006 11 Obtaining services dishonestly
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another —
(a) by a dishonest act, and
(b) in breach of subsection (2).
(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if —
(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them,
(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
(c) when he obtains them, he knows —
(i) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or
(ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable —
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
RELATED: TOPIC / THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: THEFT BREACH OF TRUST, August 15, 2015
BREACH OF TRUST IN EXCESS OF £170K [RM1.09M]
R v TORKONIAK [2005] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) 27
Convicted of 15 counts of theft, two counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception, one count of false accounting, two counts of obtaining property by deception, one count of forgery, and one count of perjury. The defendant was in practice as a solicitor. He negotiated a settlement of £100,000 for a client who suffered personal injuries. The defendant told the client that the amount awarded was £18,000 and retained at least £75,000 for himself. In the case of another client, the defendant retained £3,000 out of an award of £18,000, and failed to repay costs to the LSC of £10,000 which the applicant had recovered from insurance. Various other amounts were stolen from clients in a variety of circumstances. Substantial amounts were obtained from the LSC. The applicant received payments over a period of nine years in respect of a client’s pension after the client had died. The total amount obtained was in excess of £300,000. Considerable damage to the public confidence in the legal system 8 years.
R v PRICE [2007] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.)
Pleaded guilty to 24 counts of theft, and 19 counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception. He asked for 263 further offences to be taken into consideration. The defendant ran a financial services business, acting as an agent on behalf of various building societies and set up a fictitious investment scheme. The scheme ran for 3 years. Total loss to elderly clients and building society £10.4 million. 10 years.
Conspiracy to defraud.
R V LEE AND WILLIAMS [2009] 1 Cr Ap R(S) 383
Two brokers were approached by others and use there [sic.] position as company directors and their close relationship with their bank to assist others to pass false cheques to the value of £20 million through their accounts. £15 million was cleared of which £14 million was recovered. The defendants received £210K. Convicted of conspiracy to defraud 5y 9m upheld. There was an element of breach of trust owing to their close relationship with the bank. The important point was the size of the conspiracy. The defendants fell to be punished not just by reference to their own gain but by reference to the scale of the conspiracy and the part they played in it. The fact that the victim was a bank did not help them in the light of the scale of the fraud.
(TOPIC / THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: THEFT BREACH OF TRUST, August 15, 2015)
I. “NOT TRIABLE IN THE UK.”
“It’s not something they could execute against me. They have charged me under laws that don’t exist in the UK or any other normal democratic country. What they have said is that I have printed material that has caused concern in the minds of the public and that is a crime, apparently.”
– Clare Rewcastle Brown, August 6, 2015
(British Journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown given police protection after being followed in Hyde Park — The Independent, August 6, 2015)
UK CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 PART I — CONSPIRACY 1A Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom.
(3) The second condition is that that act or other event constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country or territory.
(4) The third condition is that the agreement would fall within section 1(1) above as an agreement relating to the commission of an offence but for the fact that the offence would not be an offence triable in England and Wales if committed in accordance with the parties’ intentions.
(6) In the application of this Part of this Act to an agreement in the case of which each of the above conditions is satisfied, a reference to an offence is to be read as a reference to what would be the offence in question but for the fact that it is not an offence triable in England and Wales.
(7) Conduct punishable under the law in force in any country or territory is an offence under that law for the purposes of this section, however it is described in that law.
(TOPIC / UK Criminal Law Act 1977 — Nine Questions for Sarawak Report, August 12, 2015)
MORE ON THE NINE QUESTIONS Blog: EPISODES /PILOT: Decoding the Tapestry of Lies /Secrets of Sarawak Report — The Beginning of the End /Prima Facie — The Name of the Game /Dramatis Personæ — Who’s Who of Clare Brown The NINE QUESTIONS Blog will return with more facts.
Originally published at ninequestionsforsarawakreport.blogspot.com on August 16, 2015.
