Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Duty solicitor, fine

Keep us updated

[Eloise01]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

The cause of any action over this matter will be who ever made the allegation of fraud/theft

That will be the shop/retailer who called the police

I think that we need to be very careful not to mislead the OP here into thinking that they have grounds to sue. Which is what they actually asked about. The shop is not the "guilty party" either - they are the victims! This sort of episode is highly unpleasant for the OP, but the shop have done nothing at all wrong. They are the victims of fraud. They have reported that fraud and they have provided the police with evidence of a fraud having taken place and statements as to what they think may be pertinant information. It is then down to the police to weigh all the evidence, and to come to a view as to whether to pass the results of their investigation to the CPS, who will make a decision on prosecutions. It is not "wrong" or illegal for the shop to tell the police information which may be pertinant to a criminal investigation, and there is no onus on a witness who supplies the police with information to be "right" about the information that they provide. To have possible grounds to sue, the OP would need to show that the information was provided with malice or prior knowledge that the information they were providing was false. Neither of which is in evidence, and both of which are exceedingly unlikely.

It is understandable that the OP is aggrieved at being accused of something that they did not do, but I would err on the side of caution in terms of looking to inflict "damage" on the store for involving the police in a fraud because the store actually haven't done anything wrong! There is no evidence for grounds to sue. It is possible that the local rag, if it is a slow week and there isn't much news, may be willing to run a story, but it is very unlikely to inflict a shred of damage on the store, and may backfire! Realistically, nobody will choose where to buy their products from based on the fact that one person was suspected of being involved in fraud when they were not so involved. But raising the profile about what has happened can backfire on the OP - there are plenty of people who will say that there is no smoke without fire! You cannot control what people think or how they make decisions about what they read.

In the OP's position, when, as they are confident it will, the evidence available shows that they did not perpetrate this crime against the company, my response would be to send a measured and calm letter to the CEO, expressing their disappointment in the stores role in this distressing incident; underlining the fact that they did not even use the vouchers in question and that effective checking and recording procedures (which many other stores use) would have eliminated them from any suspicion from the start; pointing out the distress and inconvenience that this has caused them; etc etc. It is far more likely that the company will respond with some gesture of recompense if this is approached in a calm and measured way - and if they do not that is a far better story for a local newspaper if the OP still wishes to publicise what has happened to them - although I still doubt that anyone would be influenced in their buying habits by such a story, and that it would do no damage, never mind maximum damage, to the company.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Thanks for the comments, it is appreciated

The facts stated from the poster is that he does not deny using vouchers for the purchase

He is denying the fake vouchers as the cause of action were by a third party, and not linked to him

It is the retailer that has linked him to the fraudulent vouchers

If it transpires through CCTV evidence that the retailer is in error by a false identification, even in good faith, them that retailer will have to be held accountable for its actions in involving the police

Al that is needed will be to look at the CCTV IMAGE, zoom in on the vouchers tendered, and identify them or not, as the fraudulence ones tendered at the till

That is my opinion on it, but specialist advice in litigation in this area of defamation is highly recommended

[Eloise01]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Thanks for the comments, it is appreciated

the facts stated from the poster is that he does not deny using vouchers for the purchase

he is denying the fake vouchers as the cause of action were by a third party, and not linked to him

it is the retailer that has linked him to the fraudalent vouchers

if it transpires through cctv evidence that the retailer is in error by a false identification, even in good faith, them that retailer will have to be held accountable in involving the police

that is my opinion on it

Yes - I did read the thread thank you. I accept that this is your opinion on it - I therefore disagree with your opinion. You cannot hold someone "accountable" for reporting a crime to the police. That is patent nonsense. You can only hold someone accountable (as can the police) if that report is malicious or false. There is no evidence that this is either. If people could be sued for reporting crimes to the police and providing the police with evidence or information which may be pertinent to the crime, then nobody would report crimes and nobody would provide witness statements. Being "in error" is not an offence.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

The poster is stating that the allegation is false through mistaken identity by the retailer

He is saying that he used a different brand of vouchers to the one the store linked to the fraudulent vouchers

AS STATED

Get the CCTV evidence and zoom in to confirm what vouchers the poster tendered at the point of sale, that will either convict or exonerate him of the offence

Any further civil action can then be discussed with an advocate who specializes in this area of litigation

[Eloise01]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Yes thank you, as I said - I read the thread. AS STATED.

The store is not responsible for investigating crimes. The police are. A crime has been reported. Evidence which may relate to that crime has been provided to the police. I stand by the legal opinion which I have provided herein. It does not need a specialist lawyer to know this - it is basic legal practice and principles and the sort of thing that any baby barrister or junior solicitor knows by heart.

Are you, by any chance, based in Scotland, because we do not have advocates in law in the rest of the UK; and specialises is with an "s" not a "z" in the whole of the UK - which may indicate that your base is outside the UK altogether?

[bluebottle]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

That is something

Normally it is DNA, fingerprints, mug shot, etc

Any one detained for an arrestable offence normally has this done as routine now

If/when this case is dropped, i would seriously consider contacting the retailers head office and do some sort of deal

The last case i researched was where an individual received £250 for every minute he was held in custody unlawfully (That was against the police for unlawful arrest)

I believe he ended up with 75 k as settlement

I have heard that Wrongful/Unlawful Arrest is becoming increasingly more expensive for police forces and corporate complainants, e.g. supermarkets. As for the officers who arrested the OP, speaking as a retired police officer, some police officers currently serving do make me wonder how they ever got past the interview stage with two senior officers. Having dealt with offences of counterfeit currency in the past, I have to say that a police officer has to be very careful that they do not arrest a person on the say-so of a retail manager who considers they have more rights to be listened to and believed than the person they are alleging is trying to pass off counterfeit items. Commonsense should have told the officers involved in this case to proceed with caution as, in many cases, the person with the counterfeit banknote, etc., may be genuinely and blissfully unaware the item they have tendered is counterfeit. Banks are notorious for feeding counterfeit banknotes into circulation and, when challenged, have admitted to doing so.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Personal petty insults are a sign that a structured debate based on opinion and logic has been lost, for which i will no longer take part in any protracted petty quarrels.

[bluebottle]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Thanks for the comments, it is appreciated

The facts stated from the poster is that he does not deny using vouchers for the purchase

He is denying the fake vouchers as the cause of action were by a third party, and not linked to him

It is the retailer that has linked him to the fraudulent vouchers

If it transpires through CCTV evidence that the retailer is in error by a false identification, even in good faith, them that retailer will have to be held accountable for its actions in involving the police

Al that is needed will be to look at the CCTV IMAGE, zoom in on the vouchers tendered, and identify them or not, as the fraudulence ones tendered at the till

That is my opinion on it, but specialist advice in litigation in this area of defamation is highly recommended

The very least the retailer, in the OP's case, may have to do is some serious grovelling.

[wales01man]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

The OP was arrested on suspicion of a crime like thousands each year,the shop has some ecidence that they and may have used fake vouchers and have provided some evidence with more to come the police usually start an investigation then obtain more evidence this is the process.how does the OP know that some others have not been questioned? if they are innocent they have nothing to fear the police and the shop seem to be acting properley it doesnt seem to be a conspiracy against the OP it is most likely normal practice
When i read the vouchers came from ebay it set alarm bells ringing

[Eloise01]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

I have heard that Wrongful/Unlawful Arrest is becoming increasingly more expensive for police forces and corporate complainants, e.g. supermarkets. As for the officers who arrested the OP, speaking as a retired police officer, some police officers currently serving do make me wonder how they ever got past the interview stage with two senior officers. Having dealt with offences of counterfeit currency in the past, I have to say that a police officer has to be very careful that they do not arrest a person on the say-so of a retail manager who considers they have more rights to be listened to and believed than the person they are alleging is trying to pass off counterfeit items. Commonsense should have told the officers involved in this case to proceed with caution as, in many cases, the person with the counterfeit banknote, etc., may be genuinely and blissfully unaware the item they have tendered is counterfeit. Banks are notorious for feeding counterfeit banknotes into circulation and, when challenged, have admitted to doing so.

That is entirely true. But there is no evidence at all that the police have arrested someone on the say so of the store manager. The store manager has provided the police with the evidence pertaining to the crime - if the police were stupid enough to make an arrest before viewing the CCTV, when they knew that was available to them, then that is their responsibility. The store manager gave a statement to the police pertaining to crime of which the store is the victim. If their records show that these were the only vouchers taken that week, then that is what their records show and the manager simply told the police what the records show. That did not mean that the police had to arrest someone before reviewing all the available evidence! As I am sure you are aware, the quality of CCTV playback in many stores (and elsewhere) is very limited - the store more than likely do not have the facilities to identify the vouchers handed over. That is why the police need to review CCTV evidence with their far superior systems.

[Eloise01]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

Personal petty insults are a sign that a structured debate based on opinion and logic has been lost, for which i will no longer take part in any protracted petty quarrels.

I am sorry - where was the petty insult? I asked you a question. You didn't answer it. Your response was an evasion.

[bluebottle]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

I think that we need to be very careful not to mislead the OP here into thinking that they have grounds to sue. Which is what they actually asked about. The shop is not the "guilty party" either - they are the victims! This sort of episode is highly unpleasant for the OP, but the shop have done nothing at all wrong. They are the victims of fraud. They have reported that fraud and they have provided the police with evidence of a fraud having taken place and statements as to what they think may be pertinant information. It is then down to the police to weigh all the evidence, and to come to a view as to whether to pass the results of their investigation to the CPS, who will make a decision on prosecutions. It is not "wrong" or illegal for the shop to tell the police information which may be pertinant to a criminal investigation, and there is no onus on a witness who supplies the police with information to be "right" about the information that they provide. To have possible grounds to sue, the OP would need to show that the information was provided with malice or prior knowledge that the information they were providing was false. Neither of which is in evidence, and both of which are exceedingly unlikely.

It is understandable that the OP is aggrieved at being accused of something that they did not do, but I would err on the side of caution in terms of looking to inflict "damage" on the store for involving the police in a fraud because the store actually haven't done anything wrong! There is no evidence for grounds to sue. It is possible that the local rag, if it is a slow week and there isn't much news, may be willing to run a story, but it is very unlikely to inflict a shred of damage on the store, and may backfire! Realistically, nobody will choose where to buy their products from based on the fact that one person was suspected of being involved in fraud when they were not so involved. But raising the profile about what has happened can backfire on the OP - there are plenty of people who will say that there is no smoke without fire! You cannot control what people think or how they make decisions about what they read.

In the OP's position, when, as they are confident it will, the evidence available shows that they did not perpetrate this crime against the company, my response would be to send a measured and calm letter to the CEO, expressing their disappointment in the stores role in this distressing incident; underlining the fact that they did not even use the vouchers in question and that effective checking and recording procedures (which many other stores use) would have eliminated them from any suspicion from the start; pointing out the distress and inconvenience that this has caused them; etc etc. It is far more likely that the company will respond with some gesture of recompense if this is approached in a calm and measured way - and if they do not that is a far better story for a local newspaper if the OP still wishes to publicise what has happened to them - although I still doubt that anyone would be influenced in their buying habits by such a story, and that it would do no damage, never mind maximum damage, to the company.

I have to agree with what you say, Eloise. On a positive note, going to the media and presenting the OP and retailer as being victims of fraudsters can have a beneficial effect as it alerts other consumers and retailers that counterfeit vouchers, etc., are in circulation. As Forceofone has said, when a retailer gets it badly wrong, it can prove to be a very expensive lesson for the retailer. A certain major supermarket operator, some years ago, wrongly accused two shoppers of shoplifting. The case went as far as the Court of Appeal due, largely, to the intransigence and arrogance of the supermarket operator in not acknowledging their blunder and trying to put matters right. It resulted in the supermarket operator facing a total bill of £450k-£500k, £140k of which was damages to the two shoppers for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Malicious Prosecution and Damage to Character and Reputation. The remainder was the costs of the hearings at the Magistrates Court, Crown Court, High Court and Court of Appeal, which the Court of Appeal ordered the retailer to pay.

[bluebottle]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

That is entirely true. But there is no evidence at all that the police have arrested someone on the say so of the store manager. The store manager has provided the police with the evidence pertaining to the crime - if the police were stupid enough to make an arrest before viewing the CCTV, when they knew that was available to them, then that is their responsibility. The store manager gave a statement to the police pertaining to crime of which the store is the victim. If their records show that these were the only vouchers taken that week, then that is what their records show and the manager simply told the police what the records show. That did not mean that the police had to arrest someone before reviewing all the available evidence! As I am sure you are aware, the quality of CCTV playback in many stores (and elsewhere) is very limited - the store more than likely do not have the facilities to identify the vouchers handed over. That is why the police need to review CCTV evidence with their far superior systems.

Have you come across some of the numpties they are issuing with warrant cards these days?

[Inca]

Re: Arrested for Using Counterfit Vouchers

I can't see any insults petty or otherwise (unless I'm completely missing something).