Fraud & Armstrong

Trev The Rev

It is clear to me that Armstrong has obtained financial advantage by misrepresentation in that he claimed he was a clean athlete when entering into sponsorship contracts. This is not just a civil matter it is criminal. Paying the money back does not negate the original crime.

Armstrong has also obtained damages from The Times and in doing so must have made written statements. He may not have perjured himself in open court but it is a criminal act to knowingly make a falce statement.

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.



The Offences
Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).
In each case:

the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:

made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:

failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

plectrum

Trev,

No problem with this premise but then the laws need to be applied to every athlete who has committed similar fraud otherwise it is really discrimination.

meagain

I do not understand WHY the sponsors feel aggreived and cheated. They got the publicity for which they paid at the time AND they are now getting their names in the public eye again - additional exposure, a bonus, that is a direct result of the cheating. If he'd never been caught, then their advertising "returns" would have ended with his wins.

slim_boy_fat

meagain wrote:

I do not understand WHY the sponsors feel aggreived and cheated. They got the publicity for which they paid at the time AND they are now getting their names in the public eye again - additional exposure, a bonus, that is a direct result of the cheating. If he'd never been caught, then their advertising "returns" would have ended with his wins.

I'm not sure it's advantageous to be linked with the biggest cheat of all time. If it was why would they drop him?

alihisgreat

Trev The Rev wrote:

It is clear to me that Armstrong has obtained financial advantage by misrepresentation in that he claimed he was a clean athlete when entering into sponsorship contracts. This is not just a civil matter it is criminal. Paying the money back does not negate the original crime.

Armstrong has also obtained damages from The Times and in doing so must have made written statements. He may not have perjured himself in open court but it is a criminal act to knowingly make a falce statement.

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.



The Offences
Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4.

Fraud by false representation (Section 2);
Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).
In each case:

the defendant's conduct must be dishonest;
his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another.
No gain or loss needs actually to have been made.
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:

made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:

failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Its called the statute of limitations... which applies to crimes in the US so that you can't be tried outside a certain time limit.

I think its part of their whole tyranny prevention thing.. just like being able to buy military assault weapons to stop the government enslaving you :roll:

Trev The Rev

plectrum wrote:

Trev,

No problem with this premise but then the laws need to be applied to every athlete who has committed similar fraud otherwise it is really discrimination.

It should be applied to every athlete.

plectrum

Trev

Yup I think T Mobile should sue, can you imagine!

tailwindhome

Trev The Rev wrote:

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.

Footballers who dive?

Richmond Racer

plectrum wrote:

Trev

Yup I think T Mobile should sue, can you imagine!

Oooh, and Rabo - all financial institutions could do with some extra cash, non?

slim_boy_fat

TailWindHome wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.

Footballers who dive?

Nah, we should just shoot those on the spot

Richmond Racer

TailWindHome wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.

Footballers who dive?

Batsmen who stay at the crease until called out even though they know they should be out?

Rugger players who do spear tackles? Or do things like 'Bloodgate'?

tailwindhome

Richmond Racer wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.

Footballers who dive?

Batsmen who stay at the crease until called out even though they know they should be out?

Rugger players who do spear tackles? Or do things like 'Bloodgate'?

Referees who add time until Man U score?

Trev The Rev

meagain wrote:

I do not understand WHY the sponsors feel aggreived and cheated. They got the publicity for which they paid at the time AND they are now getting their names in the public eye again - additional exposure, a bonus, that is a direct result of the cheating. If he'd never been caught, then their advertising "returns" would have ended with his wins.

You don't understand why the sponsors feel aggrieved and cheated? Are you a banker?

tailwindhome

Trev The Rev wrote:

meagain wrote:

I do not understand WHY the sponsors feel aggreived and cheated. They got the publicity for which they paid at the time AND they are now getting their names in the public eye again - additional exposure, a bonus, that is a direct result of the cheating. If he'd never been caught, then their advertising "returns" would have ended with his wins.

You don't understand why the sponsors feel aggrieved and cheated? Are you a banker?

Do the sponsors feel aggrieved and cheated?

Richmond Racer

So these poor sponsors....they'd include those who, thanks to Dear Lance:

ruined Lemond's bike business - Trek
helped lean on Stephanie McIlvain to change her testimony or lose her job - Oakley

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I can not understand why sportsmen who have clearly committed fraud are not arrested and charged by the police.

I know the law in the USA is not English law but it is similar, see below. Armstrong is clearly a fraudster and should be arrested and charged. I also think any other sportsman should be treated in exactly the same way.

Footballers who dive?

Batsmen who stay at the crease until called out even though they know they should be out?

Rugger players who do spear tackles? Or do things like 'Bloodgate'?

Fixing cricket matches is illegal and arrests have been made. Gamesmanship is rather different to clear financial gain. If a referee were to knowingly fix the result of a match that would be a criminal matter. Deliberately injuring another sportsman would be a criminal matter although it would be hard to prove intent. A jockey who deliberately holds a horse back would be criminal and arrests have been made.

I see no reason why laws which apply in business or every day life should not apply to sport.

EKIMIKE

Waaaahhh! Major blurring of criminal and civil lines in this thread.

Tip: Let the lawyers do the law.

Richmond Racer

EKIMIKE wrote:

Waaaahhh! Major blurring of criminal and civil lines in this thread.

Tip: Let the lawyers do the law.

Trev is in fact Rumpole of the Bailey and I claim my £5

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

So these poor sponsors....they'd include those who, thanks to Dear Lance:

ruined Lemond's bike business - Trek
helped lean on Stephanie McIlvain to change her testimony or lose her job - Oakley

Yes sponsors do feel cheated, but obviously if they knew the athlete was a liar and a cheat when they signed the contract there would be no fraud.

If Trek did destroy Lemond's business by illegal means they would have a case to answer in English law and international law. It is not necessarily illegal to destroy your competitors, it is illegal if you did something like form a cartel, or colude with their bankers to withdraw overdraft facilities - Freddie Laker won a case against British Airways for that.

I can't speak for Oakley case but it is illegal to intimidate witnesses.

All I'm advocating is applying the law to sport as it is in business. Sport is business, very big business, there is no logical reason to apply the law to it more leniently.

Yes there is a blurring of civil and criminal law. See the Steven Lawrence case.

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Waaaahhh! Major blurring of criminal and civil lines in this thread.

Tip: Let the lawyers do the law.

Trev is in fact Rumpole of the Bailey and I claim my £5

The author of Rumpole of the Bailey is dead.

Richmond Racer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

Waaaahhh! Major blurring of criminal and civil lines in this thread.

Tip: Let the lawyers do the law.

Trev is in fact Rumpole of the Bailey and I claim my £5

The author of Rumpole of the Bailey is dead.

*sigh*

nathancom

Does SoL cover civil cases, ie defamation of character suits that may be brought against LA?

Richmond Racer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

So these poor sponsors....they'd include those who, thanks to Dear Lance:

ruined Lemond's bike business - Trek
helped lean on Stephanie McIlvain to change her testimony or lose her job - Oakley

Yes sponsors do feel cheated, but obviously if they knew the athlete was a liar and a cheat when they signed the contract there would be no fraud.

If Trek did destroy Lemond's business by illegal means they would have a case to answer in English law and international law. It is not necessarily illegal to destroy your competitors, it is illegal if you did something like form a cartel, or colude with their bankers to withdraw overdraft facilities - Freddie Laker won a case against British Airways for that.

I can't speak for Oakley case but it is illegal to intimidate witnesses.

All I'm advocating is applying the law to sport as it is in business. Sport is business, very big business, there is no logical reason to apply the law to it more leniently.

Yes there is a blurring of civil and criminal law. See the Steven Lawrence case.

If you insist on pontificating on this subject, you should do some research.

Trek carried Lemond's bike line. The result of Lemond speaking out led to the destruction of his bike business, his public humiliation and a huge demolition job on his reputation.

So do not try to give out that a sponsor like this deserves anything whatsoever.

EKIMIKE

Trev The Rev wrote:

If Trek did destroy Lemond's business by illegal means they would have a case to answer in English law and international law. It is not necessarily illegal to destroy your competitors, it is illegal if you did something like form a cartel, or colude with their bankers to withdraw overdraft facilities - Freddie Laker won a case against British Airways for that.

Are you for real?

EKIMIKE

nathancom wrote:

Does SoL cover civil cases, ie defamation of character suits that may be brought against LA?

I think it gets very complex with the Federal/State system. There are limitations at Federal level for Federal issues and there are limitations at state level for state level issues.

So it depends what kind of issue we're talking about. Clearly we have no idea what we're on about, myself included.

Some basic reading from crimes if you're really interested: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

If Trek did destroy Lemond's business by illegal means they would have a case to answer in English law and international law. It is not necessarily illegal to destroy your competitors, it is illegal if you did something like form a cartel, or colude with their bankers to withdraw overdraft facilities - Freddie Laker won a case against British Airways for that.

Are you for real?

Think I should re word that about Laker. There was a price cartel and Laker took 6 years to win in court. British Airways were part of the cartel and they did colude to put Laker out of business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obitu ... 66243.html

Skytrain's first flight from Gatwick to New York was the climax of Laker's career. Five years later the world's first cut-price transatlantic airline was bankrupt and, a quarter of a century on, its founder is perhaps best remembered for his legal battle to prove that his company was the victim of a conspiracy between the major British and American airlines to force Laker Airways out of business by "predatory pricing" (selling their own fares at a loss) so that they could revert to their bad old habit of fixing the price of airline seats to the United States much higher. Laker sued and eventually won a legal victory which paved the way for the success of Virgin Airways and other low-fare initiatives..

A few days before Laker went bust he famously paid his creditors early to ensure these small businesses got their money before the bankers pulled the rug..

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

So these poor sponsors....they'd include those who, thanks to Dear Lance:

ruined Lemond's bike business - Trek
helped lean on Stephanie McIlvain to change her testimony or lose her job - Oakley

Yes sponsors do feel cheated, but obviously if they knew the athlete was a liar and a cheat when they signed the contract there would be no fraud.

If Trek did destroy Lemond's business by illegal means they would have a case to answer in English law and international law. It is not necessarily illegal to destroy your competitors, it is illegal if you did something like form a cartel, or colude with their bankers to withdraw overdraft facilities - Freddie Laker won a case against British Airways for that.

I can't speak for Oakley case but it is illegal to intimidate witnesses.

All I'm advocating is applying the law to sport as it is in business. Sport is business, very big business, there is no logical reason to apply the law to it more leniently.

Yes there is a blurring of civil and criminal law. See the Steven Lawrence case.

If you insist on pontificating on this subject, you should do some research.

Trek carried Lemond's bike line. The result of Lemond speaking out led to the destruction of his bike business, his public humiliation and a huge demolition job on his reputation.

So do not try to give out that a sponsor like this deserves anything whatsoever.

I was referring to sponsors in general - I have no time for Trek and I agree their treatment of Lemond was appalling.
Lemond might have a case against Trek & Armstrong.

EKIMIKE

You're attempting to assimilate two very, very different offences, covered by different laws (certainly in the England and Wales).

Competition law and fraud are different.

Please, stop trying to be an armchair lawyer. No-one likes and armchair lawyer. I'm a final year law student and i'd want at least 2 solid weeks with access to all the required resources (which frankly you won't find on the free internet) before i started to do what you're trying to do.

Trev The Rev

EKIMIKE wrote:

You're attempting to assimilate two very, very different offences, covered by different laws (certainly in the England and Wales).

Competition law and fraud are different.

Please, stop trying to be an armchair lawyer. No-one likes and armchair lawyer. I'm a final year law student and i'd want at least 2 solid weeks with access to all the required resources (which frankly you won't find on the free internet) before i started to do what you're trying to do.

I am pointing out that both criminal and or civil offences may have been committed. I am not giving a barristers opinion. I am not giving a legal opinion. This is a forum where people discuss things, where people engage in a bit of banter.

I have employed both Barristers & Solicitors and have won several legal cases, two of which I represented myself, one of those against a firm of solicitors and I have won every single case. Some of the solicitors were useful and worth the money, some were idiots. The barrister gave good advice. These were all civil cases.

Go back to school.

EKIMIKE

And you think that means you know a bit about U.S. law? If so that's an astoundingly arrogant assertion.

I'm not the one playing lawyers. I'm humble enough to realise i'm not one. I'll carry on at law school and maybe one day become a lawyer. You, however, will continue to be that annoying person who pretends to be a lawyer. There are embarrassing and basic flaws in practically everything you have said so far.

Don't let your head get too big.

iainf72

The statute of limitations does not apply to civil actions, so people can and will file suit.

But ultimately it really only applies in the case of Sunday Times and SCA