Biggest Fare dodger in History

nathancom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27019782

"A rail union has claimed a hedge fund manager was able to "buy silence" after he repaid £42,550 in unpaid fares to Southeastern - but remained anonymous and avoided court action."

We really are moving into dangerous territory when corporations allow this kind of thing to happen. It seems to me that it shows a lack of concern for social responsibility on the part of the rail company. Personally I hope there is a change in franchise regulations following on from this.

Isn't this equivalent to accepting a bribe and therefore a corrupt payment?

bianchimoon

Not sure how they can prosecute anyone for fare dodging now if said fare dodger offers to pay back dodged fare?
Precedent set?

frenchfighter

It makes a nice banker-bashing story which this country is so fond of doing.

Looking at it objectively, why should his name be in the newspaper or anyone elses who dodges fares? I cant recall anyone's name being shamed in public for this but then I dont read tabloids or the daily mail so maybe I've missed some.

I don't consider it a bribe - any fine, lets say parking fine, says failure to pay leads to court action, not that payment saves you from court action.

Taking people to court takes a lot of money and it was probably the best decision financially by the company. They are not the moral police but a profit making company. I suspect in most cases they would use court as a last resort.

I would be more concerned with why he was able to rack up so much before action been taken. Five years without his ticket being checked? Maybe they should use that money to employ some ticket inspectors and give someone a job?

nathancom

frenchfighter wrote:

It makes a nice banker-bashing story which this country is so fond of doing.

Looking at it objectively, why should his name be in the newspaper or anyone elses who dodges fares? I cant recall anyone's name being shamed in public for this but then I dont read tabloids or the daily mail so maybe I've missed some.

I don't consider it a bribe - any fine, lets say parking fine, says failure to pay leads to court action, not that payment saves you from court action.

Taking people to court takes a lot of money and it was probably the best decision financially by the company. They are not the moral police but a profit making company. I suspect in most cases they would use court as a last resort.

I would be more concerned with why he was able to rack up so much before action been taken. Five years without his ticket being checked? Maybe they should use that money to employ some ticket inspectors and give someone a job?

I think from my post it was clear that I felt the company was at fault rather than the banker. You can't really blame an individual from trying to improve his outcome.

As I said I think corporations need to think about their social responsibility. This company has basically just said to everyone that if you can pay for your crimes then no harm no foul. That is a terrible precedent to set and makes you thankful that we are not yet run by corporations.

He was engaged in a scam using an Oyster card rather than simply not having his card checked.

Considering the period the scam was in operation I find it hard to justify not prosecuting the individual and I suspect this is only going to incentivise others to scam at the cost of honest people who pay thousands a year just to get to work.

I think an element of being found guilty of crime is public shame, both as a warning to others and as a lesson to the individual. This person has escaped that only on account of their ability to pay.

frenchfighter

I agree with your sentiment in general but dont think there is double justice in terms of wealth.

Where was the scam?

It is easy to find people not paying just like it is easy to find people speeding. Why they dont do it is a different matter. Possibly they think they will make less back then the salary of the inspectors? Presence of inspectors vs deterred fare dodgers is hard to quantify I guess.

In terms of precedent - hmm. I think if he has paid back the money plus the max fine (1k I think but dont travel on trains) then surely that is ok? If you refuse to pay it back or cant then sure, court action is appropriate.

Remember that papers are money making companies. Stories like this make money for them.

I would also question how this got to the papers? Some employee of the train company leaking info for a bung? Morally unacceptable imo if so.

frenchfighter

I would just add that I am not condoning his actions. He was wrong and morally dubious especially as he could afford to pay in the first place (I think cost of local travel should not prohibit opportunities. In Germany all people in education have free travel).

desweller

It's theft. He's not making the payment on the basis of a prior agreement to receive travel in return for a single payment to be made in the future, he's making it because he's been caught; there is a criminal element to what he's done so why is there no criminal case to answer?

pliptrot

It's a criminal offense. Imagine killing someone and then paying to walk away from that. This happens in Saudi Arabia. This shows how far the UK has fallen. Let's face it: people in cars routinely kill and maim cyclists with punishments - if there are any - woefully inadequate given the crime. We should not be surprised.

slowmart

It's not theft. No intent to permanently deprive which

It seems no one has challenged this individual and it was only by chance he was caught.

So take the amount and the job role away and what's is the difference to any fare dodger?

And considering all the MP's who had to return cash wrongly claimed the charge could and should have been deception. Deception has harsher sentencing guidelines than theft. That's the truly outrageous crime here.

Richard_D

If I was the employer of that hedge fund manager I would want to know. Similarly If I was a customer of his. What else has he done that is ethically dubious and borderline criminal

DesB3rd

Imagine killing someone and then paying to walk away from that. This happens in Saudi Arabia. This shows how far the UK has fallen.

Murder & fare evasion is an absurd comparison; fare evasion teeters on a knife edge between a civil & criminal offence (in many jurisdictions its the former) and the state knows and appreciates as much.

I'm all for civil settlement in nigh-on any scenario; if it happens in the shadow of the law then chances are the damages accrued will be of equal magnitude to the state's prescribed punishment but will probably address the wronged party's requirements far better.

Giraffoto

DesB3rd wrote:

Imagine killing someone and then paying to walk away from that. This happens in Saudi Arabia. This shows how far the UK has fallen.

Murder & fare evasion is an absurd comparison

Maybe so, but what about overdue library books?

Insisting that this guy is named is ridiculous. You can try this today if you like - dodge a fare on the train, and if you're caught you get the chance of paying an on-the-spot penalty plus whatever you owe the train company, or you can be awkward and go to court. Option one is "buying silence". It's one rule for everyone. You can buy silence, I can buy silence, everyone can buy silence. Although it's properly called an on-the-spot penalty and is applied for loads of minor offences. Should we name and shame all of these? Or does the OP only want rich perpetrators to be named? How rich?

As for Saudi Arabia, I believe the law there states that if the victim's family is willing to forgive the perpetrator, the matter is over. Or they can demand compensation and then forgive them. Or they can just refuse to forgive them, in which case the court goes ahead and deals with it. It's not "buying silence".

Garry H

Richard_D wrote:

If I was the employer of that hedge fund manager I would want to know. Similarly If I was a customer of his. What else has he done that is ethically dubious and borderline criminal

Quite right. I'd re-hire him as a tax accountant though.

MattC59

pliptrot wrote:

It's a criminal offense. Imagine killing someone and then paying to walk away from that. This happens in Saudi Arabia. This shows how far the UK has fallen. Let's face it: people in cars routinely kill and maim cyclists with punishments - if there are any - woefully inadequate given the crime. We should not be surprised.

Ha ! Yeah, good one :roll:

sloppyschleckonds

fast as fupp

its utterly corrupt- he's been able to bribe himself out of a criminal conviction.

indicative of the depths this country has fallen to.

Giraffoto

fast as fupp wrote:

its utterly corrupt- he's been able to bribe himself out of a criminal conviction.

indicative of the depths this country has fallen to.

It's not a bribe. It's an instant penalty, and it's how the train company operates. If you travelled on the train without a ticket, got caught and paid your fare plus the penalty, would you consider it bribing yourself out of a conviction? Or would you refuse to pay the penalty and go to court because your ethics won't allow you to bribe yourself out of a conviction?

The only difference is the amount of fares dodged.

fast as fupp

Giraffoto wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

its utterly corrupt- he's been able to bribe himself out of a criminal conviction.

indicative of the depths this country has fallen to.

It's not a bribe. It's an instant penalty, and it's how the train company operates. If you travelled on the train without a ticket, got caught and paid your fare plus the penalty, would you consider it bribing yourself out of a conviction? Or would you refuse to pay the penalty and go to court because your ethics won't allow you to bribe yourself out of a conviction?

The only difference is the amount of fares dodged.

thats the thing, you see. i wouldnt travel without the correct ticket. its this old fashioned thing called honesty. have you heard of it?

its industrial scale fare evasion- he should have been put before a court.

DesB3rd

"its industrial scale fare evasion- he should have been put before a court."

Why exactly?

The perpetrator has been penalised by a value equal to his wrongdoing and the wronged party has received recompense which it deems satisfactory. What additional service does the court provide aside for satisfying a low, instinctive urge for vengeance?

fast as fupp

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

ballysmate

I agree FAF, what he did was patently dishonest but I have to say that if I had been diddled out of a wedge like that I would want it back asap.
So would I accept the reparations now or report it to the local constabulary and risk never seeing any money?
I know which I would choose. How about you?

slowmart

fast as fupp wrote:

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

To have committed theft in the eyes of the law you must have the "intent to permanently deprive". No such intent can be proved in this case as the guy in question was never challenged. He used a weakness in the system for a number of years and when challenged he paid up in full. No loss was suffered and no intent can be proven.

People have different thresholds as to what level is acceptable or 'justifiable". Defrauding insurance companies, DHSS or such like can be seen, wrongly, as victimless crimes. It doesn't excuse the behaviour and tolerance can be seen as acceptance which further erodes perceptions and redressed as beating the system which is just another way of justifying the deception.

Since there was no crime there quite rightly should be no public naming, however where an individuals honesty and integrity is a fundamental aspect of their job role then that brings a whole raft of different and sharper teeth into question.

DesB3rd

The capacity to perceive the virtue (and often utility) of honesty is in no way divorced from an understanding that an alternative settlement can be the equal/preferable to punishment handed down by the state.

The impression I'm getting is a desire to make an example by way of a disproportionate sentence - as opposed to an interest in an equitable & utilitarian outcome. The former has a role in creating a disincentive to criminal behaviour but that's it and such a scenario the perpetrator almost certainly won't repeat his wrongdoings...

As to "which I would choose," that depends, if I recon I'm the last in a long line of swindled individuals then the law may be preferable (the disincentive), if it's probably the perp is a one-off chancer then an appropriate reparation is the obvious choice; it's sure, immediate, none of my compensation money in lawyers pockets etc, etc.

fast as fupp

Slowmart wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

To have committed theft in the eyes of the law you must have the "intent to permanently deprive". No such intent can be proved in this case as the guy in question was never challenged. He used a weakness in the system for a number of years and when challenged he paid up in full. No loss was suffered and no intent can be proven.

People have different thresholds as to what level is acceptable or 'justifiable". Defrauding insurance companies, DHSS or such like can be seen, wrongly, as victimless crimes. It doesn't excuse the behaviour and tolerance can be seen as acceptance which further erodes perceptions and redressed as beating the system which is just another way of justifying the deception.

Since there was no crime there quite rightly should be no public naming, however where an individuals honesty and integrity is a fundamental aspect of their job role then that brings a whole raft of different and sharper teeth into question.

your grasp of the law is somewhat flawed

http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/fare-ev ... e-law.html

nathancom

Slowmart wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

To have committed theft in the eyes of the law you must have the "intent to permanently deprive". No such intent can be proved in this case as the guy in question was never challenged. He used a weakness in the system for a number of years and when challenged he paid up in full. No loss was suffered and no intent can be proven.

People have different thresholds as to what level is acceptable or 'justifiable". Defrauding insurance companies, DHSS or such like can be seen, wrongly, as victimless crimes. It doesn't excuse the behaviour and tolerance can be seen as acceptance which further erodes perceptions and redressed as beating the system which is just another way of justifying the deception.

Since there was no crime there quite rightly should be no public naming, however where an individuals honesty and integrity is a fundamental aspect of their job role then that brings a whole raft of different and sharper teeth into question.

What's the difference between 'intent to permanently deprive' and 'intent to deprive until caught 5 years later'?

It may be beneficial in this case for the company not to press charges but it is not socially responsible and it is a clear incentive to others.

There have been a number of studies to show that as people become richer their threshold for breaking rules and laws becomes lower.

slowmart

fast as fupp wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

To have committed theft in the eyes of the law you must have the "intent to permanently deprive". No such intent can be proved in this case as the guy in question was never challenged. He used a weakness in the system for a number of years and when challenged he paid up in full. No loss was suffered and no intent can be proven.

People have different thresholds as to what level is acceptable or 'justifiable". Defrauding insurance companies, DHSS or such like can be seen, wrongly, as victimless crimes. It doesn't excuse the behaviour and tolerance can be seen as acceptance which further erodes perceptions and redressed as beating the system which is just another way of justifying the deception.

Since there was no crime there quite rightly should be no public naming, however where an individuals honesty and integrity is a fundamental aspect of their job role then that brings a whole raft of different and sharper teeth into question.

your grasp of the law is somewhat flawed

http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/fare-ev ... e-law.html

er where does it mention theft in your link?

He was caught once. No re-offending to date and has paid in full. Where's the loss? No loss equals no theft.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ... n-of-theft

slowmart

nathancom wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

so theft and fiddling is ok as long as you dont get caught, and if you do everythings ok if you pay someone off?

is honesty an alien concept to some of you?

To have committed theft in the eyes of the law you must have the "intent to permanently deprive". No such intent can be proved in this case as the guy in question was never challenged. He used a weakness in the system for a number of years and when challenged he paid up in full. No loss was suffered and no intent can be proven.

People have different thresholds as to what level is acceptable or 'justifiable". Defrauding insurance companies, DHSS or such like can be seen, wrongly, as victimless crimes. It doesn't excuse the behaviour and tolerance can be seen as acceptance which further erodes perceptions and redressed as beating the system which is just another way of justifying the deception.

Since there was no crime there quite rightly should be no public naming, however where an individuals honesty and integrity is a fundamental aspect of their job role then that brings a whole raft of different and sharper teeth into question.

What's the difference between 'intent to permanently deprive' and 'intent to deprive until caught 5 years later'?

It may be beneficial in this case for the company not to press charges but it is not socially responsible and it is a clear incentive to others.

There have been a number of studies to show that as people become richer their threshold for breaking rules and laws becomes lower.

So this guy goes unchallenged for a number of years doing what he does without hinderance and exploits a failure in the system. When challenged he pays the agreed amount.

For me it's the "when challenged" and paying out a considerable sum. Without knowing the facts of the case it seems feasible that the guy could have said it was the first time when caught? Who knows except the companies legal team and the individual concerned. However it does send out a powerful message. No matter how long you get away with it you will be caught and payment in full will be sought and given the profile and commentary this story has created has bought the whole subject into a much wider debate. The bottom line is catching the offender and the sizeable payout, that is the disincentive right there.

On your last point lead being removed from petrol is also a consideration as increased lead levels can lead to diminished decision making abilities and impulsive behaviours. Interesting if true

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27067615

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 98151.html

Giraffoto

fast as fupp wrote:

Giraffoto wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

its utterly corrupt- he's been able to bribe himself out of a criminal conviction.

indicative of the depths this country has fallen to.

It's not a bribe. It's an instant penalty, and it's how the train company operates. If you travelled on the train without a ticket, got caught and paid your fare plus the penalty, would you consider it bribing yourself out of a conviction? Or would you refuse to pay the penalty and go to court because your ethics won't allow you to bribe yourself out of a conviction?

The only difference is the amount of fares dodged.

thats the thing, you see. i wouldnt travel without the correct ticket. its this old fashioned thing called honesty. have you heard of it?

its industrial scale fare evasion- he should have been put before a court.

I always pay - I've heard of honesty. My point is not about honesty. The thing that is causing so much outrage is not that this guy didn't pay his fare, it's that he didn't go to court. Now, if we're not to have one law for the rich and one for the rest of us poor plebs, you have to insist that everyone who dodges a fare goes to court. No fixed penalty and pay it back, you dodge a £5 fare and you'll go to court. However, the train company has this policy of accepting a penalty plus the maximum fare that could have been dodged, and they apply it fairly to everyone.

Here's my very fair policy - I'm glad this guy got caught, and I'm glad he paid back the fares he'd been evading. I'm also glad when they get anyone for not buying a ticket, because that's fair.

Giraffoto

This though - this, definitely, is buying your way out of trouble. Nor are HMRC applying the same penalty fairly to all parties concerned

Mikey23

Methinks mr ecclestone might have been economical with the truth... I'm sure HMRC might reopen the case