defaulting on a loan is a civil case AFAIK
When a 'friend' does a runner with your money
- Thread starter Streeteh
- Start date
defaulting on a loan is a civil case AFAIK
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
If it goes nowhere, name and shame. Tell everyone he knows or don't know, and lets see how he likes it. £600 is not worth too much aggro, but enough to let people know what a scumbag he is.
Hell, you could have some fun too. Make a facebook page. "Wanted : Have you seen this man". That sort of ****.
Hell, you could have some fun too. Make a facebook page. "Wanted : Have you seen this man". That sort of ****.
Last edited:
No it is not. In legal terms it would simply be considered as a breach of contract. Nothing more. Unless it could be proven that, at the time the loan agreement was entered into, there was no intention to repay - which would be fraudulent conversion.
To classify as theft, the money would have had to have been taken without authority and there must have been the intention to permanently deprive. The former is not correct (the money was given willingly), the latter is nigh on impossible to prove.
However, breach of contract is a civil matter which puts the OP in a slightly improved position in that the burden of proof rests on the defendent. So it would be worth scraping together as much "evidence" as possible and submitted a small claims procedure.
Soldato
Are you even reading this thread, or just posting that blindly?
Associate
I'd say quite possibly blind, most definitely stupid. He has no idea what he's talking about nor what constitutes theft or fraud.
Wow, bit of a debate going on here gents!
Thanks to those who have given helpful advice, i will likely have a look at the small claims court route and see how much hassle it could potentially cause. As i said previously, it's money i'll survive without, it's more the principle that has irked me.
Thanks to those who have given helpful advice, i will likely have a look at the small claims court route and see how much hassle it could potentially cause. As i said previously, it's money i'll survive without, it's more the principle that has irked me.
Unless he has a good reason for dodging you Streeteh I think a generously hard smack in the mouth would suffice.
Caporegime
Having just completed a lengthy fraud case (as a Juror), with repeated usage of the words "stolen", "theft", "thieves" etc and the Judge even explaining to us that Fraud is a particular type of theft to do with money, I'm going to side with the qualified lawyers thanks.
The op's mate has stolen the money. The OP has been dishonestly deprived of the money. That is theft. Lending your car to a mate, who then never returns it is theft. Lending anything to someone who then doesn't return it is theft. Including money.
The op's mate has stolen the money. The OP has been dishonestly deprived of the money. That is theft. Lending your car to a mate, who then never returns it is theft. Lending anything to someone who then doesn't return it is theft. Including money.
As a Police Officer with 25+ years operational experience and more arrests and sucessful prosecutions for Thefts and Frauds than you've had hot dinners, I'm going to tell you that you are wrong.
As others have already said this is a civil case.
You cannot prove the intention to deprive at the time of taking the money from the friend. You would also have to prove the dishonest aspect as well. The friend gave the money freely.
I'll link both the Theft and Fraud Acts for you. Please read them, you might learn something if you read them.
Theft Act 1968
Fraud Act 2006
Oh one last thing. "Fraud being a particular type of theft to do with money?" Any item can be obtained fraudulently, not just money.
Last edited:
So why don't people who default on thier mortgage/bank loans get jailed for theft?
Associate
Exactly, as a Juror. Fraud is not a particular type of theft to do with money, I have no idea why on earth a Judge would say something like that, although having seen first hand how incapable some are it wouldn't surprise me greatly. To put it bluntly either the Judge has got it wrong or you haven't understood what he has been saying.
Fraud - The bringing about of some practical result by means of false pretences. Fraud has 3 essential elements
1. Falsehood - False representation or conduct
2. Fraud - intent to deceive and defraud.
3. Wilful imposition a benefit gained or interests of another prejudiced.
Theft - The taking and appropriation of property without the consent of the owner.
Op gave consent to his friend to take the money as I have already said. It is not theft. Theft and fraud are two separate entities.
Of course you are entitled to stick to your opinion, it is however wrong.
Although I dont have the 25 years experience Andy90 does in my 4 years as a cop I've dealt with many types of thefts and frauds. It's bread and butter stuff.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Because their houses get repo'd. You don't own the house until the mortgage is paid off, the bank/building society do. Hence you get the boot if you fail to pay.
Not sure why/how I typed that bit like that.. I can explicitly remember the Judge saying "This case is a fraud, which was a particular type of theft, to do with money." That's word for word what the Judge and leading prosecuting QC said. Grammar fail. I am well aware anything can be obtained fraudulently. It is the "taking of" (and subsequently depriving the original/true owner) that is the theft bit.
OP gave consent for his mate to take the money, with the pretence that it would be returned. It was not returned, hence it has been stolen. Borrowing something is not the same as being given something.
Anyway.. that's my reasoning. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But like I say - just been on a 4 month trial whereby a VAT fraud of millions took place, and it was constantly and only ever referred to as "stealing the VAT" and that the perpetrators are "thieves" or similar. If anyone is wondering why they were so happy to admit there was a fraud and were not trying to defend it, it's because the charge was "conspiracy to cheat the public revenue" and they pretty much all pointed the finger at other people. By and large the fact a fraud/theft/other took place was largely irrelevant as we had to decide who we thought agreed to commit it, not whether it was committed or not.
Last edited:
Associate
Yes it was given willingly by OP therefore completely negating the theft element. If he had nicked the money out his wallet or obtained it by similar means then it's theft. One of the main essential elements that i've already posted to prove the crime of theft is taking without consent. Yes the OP gave consent of the condition it would be paid back however that is the falsehood element of the fraud.
We don't know what the friends intention was when taking the money. Maybe he was intending to pay it back initially or maybe not. Whatever the case he has now obtained the money on the pretence of a lie or deception therefore fraudulently acquiring the money. Not stealing it. Anyway I have the feeling we could go round in circles with this, its like being in bloody court. I rest my case
Jester, VAT fraud is a bit different to not paying back a civil loan! You don't get jailed if you don't pay your mobile phone bill and they don't reposses your house over it, they apply a CCJ and try to get the money back via bayliffs.
If all loans not being paid back was theft then bayliffs would be redundant and the police would go around arresting the loan defaulters instead! Think about it.
If all loans not being paid back was theft then bayliffs would be redundant and the police would go around arresting the loan defaulters instead! Think about it.
Not paying your VAT bill isn't the same as defaulting on a loan. The money you owe as VAT was never loaned to you, it was collected from your customer, by you, on behalf of HMRC. If you had a job collecting rent from tenants for a landlord, and one month you pocketed all the rent money, then that would be theft, same as the VAT case. You weren't loaned the money by the landlord were you?...
The judge has expressed himself poorly but I understand what he means since I have used a similar explanation many times, and heard it from other legal professionals. Fraud is a very complex matter and comes in a number of varieties but does involving stealing something. So for the purposes of keeping things simple, it is not uncommon for a fraud involving tangible assets to be described in a base term such as theft - more to explain what is being accused and providing an improved opportunity for understanding. Of course, the reality is that it is not as simply as theft since there must be some form of deception involved.
I take out a bank loan to fund a holiday. I lose my job and can no longer afford the repayments so default. Will I be prosecuted for theft? Or will the bank commence civil proceedings against me for breach of the loan agreement?
you got done big time. 600 isnt a small amount of cash, try your best to get it back.
Last edited:
Soldato
Kinda sad someone is prepared to lose their friends over £600.
I'd just leave it, OP. £600 is a nice amount of money but it's not breaking the bank, live and learn, no lending money out in the future.
I'd just leave it, OP. £600 is a nice amount of money but it's not breaking the bank, live and learn, no lending money out in the future.
**** 'em.
"Kinda sad someone is prepared to lose their friends over £600"
How exactly do you keep a friend after that? "Hahah, remember that time I lent you £600 and you never gave me it back buddy?! Hohoho"
I'd quite happily lose a friend like that. There's things I would have done differently to the op, namely going around to his house to have a catch up with them and see what the problem is a lot sooner but I'm sure he's done everything he thinks is reasonable.
Ultimately getting the £600 back would only be worth the effort if it was worth my time. I consider my time to be one of the more valuable things to me so I wouldn't be stressed about it and put in as little effort as required. With that in mind I'd be giving your friend as little time as possible.
"Kinda sad someone is prepared to lose their friends over £600"
How exactly do you keep a friend after that? "Hahah, remember that time I lent you £600 and you never gave me it back buddy?! Hohoho"
I'd quite happily lose a friend like that. There's things I would have done differently to the op, namely going around to his house to have a catch up with them and see what the problem is a lot sooner but I'm sure he's done everything he thinks is reasonable.
Ultimately getting the £600 back would only be worth the effort if it was worth my time. I consider my time to be one of the more valuable things to me so I wouldn't be stressed about it and put in as little effort as required. With that in mind I'd be giving your friend as little time as possible.