Fraud Cases

spen666

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

mozzle

Not sure if this is of any help but your question is kind of similar to a situation I've found myself in. A little over a year ago a member of my family died, within the first 36-48hrs of their passing, one of their 'friends' withdrew a substantial amount of money from their bank account. When the police/fraud squad investigated it, the outcome was that although it was suspicious, WE the deceased family COULDNT prove this person WASNT given permission to withdraw money! To this day Im still confused how this person got away with what I call STEALING from a dead person. :?
Not sure if its the answer you wanted but hope its been of some help

top_bhoy

Both conditions are surely equal in their level of seriousness because at some point in the chain, there shall be a real life victim. You can't distinguish between them!!!

Maybe the discussion paper is to determine appropriate levels of sentencing and stealing a dead person identity wil carry lesser penalties :P

OffTheBackAdam

Very much a "depends" situation. If we're talking "Been dead so long that the will's settled and everything's been sorted" then not as bad. Still disturbing for the relatives.
Are we talking "Day of the Jackal" type fraud, where a dead person's identity is stolen by someone else to get false passport etc?
Mind you, wait a few years and all that data that those muppets have lost will be popping up all over the place!

shazzz

Is using a fictitious person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

Like OTBA says, it depends on the intent and the consequence of the 'fraud'. In general I would say that they should rank with equal seriousness as intent and consequence are independent of whether someone is alive or dead.

Mozzle's situation sounds like theft to me - I thought that once someone has died their estate can only be managed and disbursed by their executor. (I mean the executor of the will, not the chap who swung the axe).

flattythehurdler

Equally serious.

spen666

shazzz wrote:

...

Mozzle's situation sounds like theft to me - I thought that once someone has died their estate can only be managed and disbursed by their executor. (I mean the executor of the will, not the chap who swung the axe).

To prove theft you need to prove
" DISHONEST
APPROPRIATION
OF PROPERTY
BELONGING TO ANOTHER
with the INTENTION TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE the other of that property"


Appropriation - clearly this is provable - ie that the money was removed from deceased's account

Belonging to Another - could be difficult if person removing money was saying it was his money. However- probably provable as money was in deceased a/c

Intention to permanently deprive - provable here as taker had no intention to return the money

dishonesty is the problem here for a number of reasons.
firstly taker says he had permission to the money and it ishard to disprove it
secondly- the permission ends with the death- but given timings can it be shown that withdrawal was actioned AFTER death AND after taker knew of death? If can't prove both of these then can't prove dishonesty

another jacko

You could approach this from a quantitative perspective - how many people suffer. Assuming the fraud is aimed at a third party, if you commit fraud using a fictitious identity or that of a long dead person, there is only one victim. If you use a living person's identity there are at least 2 victims, more depending on the consequential effects on the dependants of a living person. If it is a recently dead person there may be many victims or none depending on the effect on the estate.

There are also qualitative issues which need to be weighed up - How do you compare the outrage felt briefly by a grieving family against the lifelong paranoia of a living victim. Is the financial cost of paying an executor to sort out the mess created to an estate worth more or less than all the stuff a living victim has to do to put their real identity back together?

In the end it is, in my view, a moral issue. The degree of culpability depends on what is in the mind of the criminal, as far as we can deduce it, not by the quantity or quality of effects on the victim. Would Peter Sutcliffe have been any less of a monster if he had been caught after killing his first victim, or the 5th or 10th? That is why we should NOT have victim impact statements as part of our sentencing process. It is why there should not be a more serious offence of causing death by careless driving or a less serious offence of 'merely' driving dangerously but getting away without serious harm. It is why attempted murderers get the same sentence as the successful ones.

spen666

another jacko wrote:

You could approach this from a quantitative perspective - how many people suffer. Assuming the fraud is aimed at a third party, if you commit fraud using a fictitious identity or that of a long dead person, there is only one victim. If you use a living person's identity there are at least 2 victims, more depending on the consequential effects on the dependants of a living person. If it is a recently dead person there may be many victims or none depending on the effect on the estate.

There are also qualitative issues which need to be weighed up - How do you compare the outrage felt briefly by a grieving family against the lifelong paranoia of a living victim. Is the financial cost of paying an executor to sort out the mess created to an estate worth more or less than all the stuff a living victim has to do to put their real identity back together?

In the end it is, in my view, a moral issue. The degree of culpability depends on what is in the mind of the criminal, as far as we can deduce it, not by the quantity or quality of effects on the victim. Would Peter Sutcliffe have been any less of a monster if he had been caught after killing his first victim, or the 5th or 10th? That is why we should NOT have victim impact statements as part of our sentencing process. It is why there should not be a more serious offence of causing death by careless driving or a less serious offence of 'merely' driving dangerously but getting away without serious harm. It is why attempted murderers get the same sentence as the successful ones.

How about defrauding 1million people of £1 each or 1 person of £1million

another jacko

The principle is the same - for a fictitous or dead identity there are X victims, for a living identity there are X + 1 victims.

On the more general point I don't think that, all other things being equal, it differs morally whether you steal £1 or £1m or whether you steal from 1 or 1m people. At a practical level we treat them differently as a way of rationing prison places, but there is no 'moral' consistency in how we do it. For example, there is no good reason I can think of (but several to the contrary) why a £1m fraud should be treated less seriously than a £1m art theft, but it is and 'white collar' criminals receive much more lenient sentences.

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

No you wouldn't. You just see it as another opportunity to try convince us all how clever you (think) you are.

spen666

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

No you wouldn't. You just see it as another opportunity to try convince us all how clever you (think) you are.

Get the chip off your shoulder

wildmoustache

another jacko wrote:

On the more general point I don't think that, all other things being equal, it differs morally whether you steal £1 or £1m or whether you steal from 1 or 1m people. .

Have to say I disagree with you on this. Stealing from 1m people causes suffering to 1m people (plus dependents etc.). Stealing from 1 person causes suffering to 1 person plus dependents etc.

By the same rationale, Hitler's crimes were morally worse than the murderer who kills one person.

spen666

wildmoustache wrote:

another jacko wrote:

On the more general point I don't think that, all other things being equal, it differs morally whether you steal £1 or £1m or whether you steal from 1 or 1m people. .

Have to say I disagree with you on this. Stealing from 1m people causes suffering to 1m people (plus dependents etc.). Stealing from 1 person causes suffering to 1 person plus dependents etc.

By the same rationale, Hitler's crimes were morally worse than the murderer who kills one person.

is that not to simply look at quantity of victims- rather than amount of suffering each sufferes?

In example of 1million people losing £1 each- suffering is minimal as most people can cope with £1 loss

1 person suffering £1million loss is likely to bankrupt most people ( Roman Abramovich etc excluded)

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

No you wouldn't. You just see it as another opportunity to try convince us all how clever you (think) you are.

Get the chip off your shoulder

I will when you get your head out of your @rse.

another jacko

Ignoring the chidlish spat which seems to have appeared...

If you have your pocket picked and discover this when you get home some time later - is the crime any less serious if you believe that you dropped or lost whatever was taken? Coversely what if you did lose something but mistakenly think that your pocket was picked?

One is a crime victim who has no sense of being one, and the other merely someone who feels like a victim and, therefore, suffers more than the real victim. If the pick pocket was caught they would be dealt with the same whether the victim had realised by then or not. It is not the victim's state of mind which matters, but the criminals at the time they did the crime.

Anonymous

another jacko wrote:

Ignoring the chidlish spat which seems to have appeared...

If you have your pocket picked and discover this when you get home some time later - is the crime any less serious if you believe that you dropped or lost whatever was taken? Coversely what if you did lose something but mistakenly think that your pocket was picked?

One is a crime victim who has no sense of being one, and the other merely someone who feels like a victim and, therefore, suffers more than the real victim. If the pick pocket was caught they would be dealt with the same whether the victim had realised by then or not. It is not the victim's state of mind which matters, but the criminals at the time they did the crime.

How can you allude to something and ignore it all at the same time?

spen666

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

No you wouldn't. You just see it as another opportunity to try convince us all how clever you (think) you are.

Get the chip off your shoulder

I will when you get your head out of your @rse.

Very constructive. Are you unable to join in the debate- are the words used too long for you. Perhaps if you ask your care worker they will explain things to you.


Now perhaps debating a serious legal issue and asking peoples views on it is not something you are capable of doing, but it is something the government do- and this is a current discussion paper, to help formulate future sentencing policy. Perhaps if you tried joining in, you could shape the sentencing guidelines- or would that prevent you being able to whinge incessantly

spen666

another jacko wrote:

Ignoring the chidlish spat which seems to have appeared...

If you have your pocket picked and discover this when you get home some time later - is the crime any less serious if you believe that you dropped or lost whatever was taken?

have I understood you properly here?

If you drop something and lose it, then there is no crime committed, unlike the first scenario which is theft.


If you mean you drop something and then someone finds it on ground and keeps it- this MAY be theft by finding

Coversely what if you did lose something but mistakenly think that your pocket was picked?

One is a crime victim who has no sense of being one, and the other merely someone who feels like a victim and, therefore, suffers more than the real victim. If the pick pocket was caught they would be dealt with the same whether the victim had realised by then or not. It is not the victim's state of mind which matters, but the criminals at the time they did the crime.

That is not always the case- the law is sadly rather schizophrenic about the importance of the victim's perception/ feelings/ injury etc

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

whitley wrote:

spen666 wrote:

This question comes from a government discussion paper.

Is using a dead person’s identity to commit a fraud more or less serious than using a living person’s identity, or is the level of seriousness the same? Why?

I'd be interested to hear people's views.

There are no right or wrong answers.

No you wouldn't. You just see it as another opportunity to try convince us all how clever you (think) you are.

Get the chip off your shoulder

I will when you get your head out of your @rse.

Very constructive. Are you unable to join in the debate- are the words used too long for you. Perhaps if you ask your care worker they will explain things to you.

Now perhaps debating a serious legal issue and asking peoples views on it is not something you are capable of doing, but it is something the government do- and this is a current discussion paper, to help formulate future sentencing policy. Perhaps if you tried joining in, you could shape the sentencing guidelines- or would that prevent you being able to whinge incessantly

Oh I see.Insulting people is your prerogative and yours only.
I'm so sorry,I didn't realise the government consulted this forum to help them formulate sentencing policies.

spen666

whitley wrote:

[...
I'm so sorry,I didn't realise the government consulted this forum to help them formulate sentencing policies.

There is a lot you don't realise then isn't there?