Tweet
Re: Blemain Finance repossession Unfair relationship Unfair charges
Hi blem-ished
You raised some interesting points above
As for what the government is doing, then the answer is to little and to late.
Blemain have been under investigation since 2009 after all this time you then se a fine of £2 million for CMC. This is an insult for all the people that have suffered thro the actions of this company.
In 2009 monarch recoveries made a profit of £9 million in one year, they run this scam for years and only get a fine of £2 million you can see why they run this scam, as even when they get caught they are very much still in profit.
As for what they are doing, is it criminal then I am of the opinion that it is but for someone to try and prove this or get the police to investigate then that is a task on its own.
When someone comes to a forum like this they are usually in some sort of trouble and the help they need is how to defend against a repossession, so all the things you mention about contacting media, MP, police, OFT/FOS wont really help with the specific problem.
In the long term then bringing blemain to the attention of the above then this is defiantly worth doing, but it takes someone with time, commitment and a passion for getting justice. ( don’t under estimate the work involved )
Now if you are looking at whether what they have done is criminal then you need to look at what I post below, but trying to get someone to do anything about it is a task on its own.
Below is not something I think any one should try and take on there own, but if they can get the police or a government regulatory body to take on then go for it.
An Introduction to the Fraud Law Framework
There is no single law which prohibits fraud. What lawyers call 'fraud law' is in reality covered by a mixture of different offences and common law (evolved and established legal principles). They range from offences covered by the theft act to the new offences of the Fraud Act 2006.
The Fraud Act 2006
Major reform in fraud law occurred with the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006. This means that on 15 January 2007 the old general offence of fraud was replaced by parts of the Fraud Act.
The Fraud Act created these new offences:
Making a false representation (section 2) monarch recoveries
Dishonestly failing to disclose information (section 3) monarch recoveries
Abuse of position (section 4) monarch recoveries
A further offence of conspiracy to defraud still exists. It is very broad and is often used as a "catch-all" where the prosecution would have difficulties for technical reasons to get a conviction for one of the new offences, but the prosecution have to show that more than one person was involved
The Dishonesty of the Defendant in a Fraud Allegation
It is a basic principle of fraud law that the prosecution must prove that the defendant was acting dishonestly when he or she did whatever has been alleged. This issue is often the key issue in many fraud trials. An example might be a situation where a defendant asks a business associate to lend him £20,000, having assured him that his or her minicab business is viable when it was actually on the edge of insolvency. The court would have to be sure that the defendant realised this and that he knew it was dishonest. The test for dishonesty is usually decided by the jury of 12 members of the public - it is a test that must be decided on the facts specific to each case.
The law says that the jury must be sure about whether the defendant has been dishonest by satisfying both stages of the legal dishonesty test (sometimes called the Gosh test).
The first stage of the test is that according to the standards of reasonable and honest people what was done must have been dishonest.
The second stage of the test is that the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was (by the standards of reasonable and honest people) dishonest.
The second part of this test means that even if someone does something which they believe to be justified (an example a judge once famously used is that of Robin Hood robbing from the rich to give to the poor), if they must have known that ordinary people would find it dishonest, then dishonesty is proven. In other words, it is the knowledge of the fact that the public view a type of action as dishonest, not agreement with that view, which proves dishonesty.
How Fraud Allegations Arise
Fraud investigations sometimes arise as a result of regulatory investigations or audits by regulatory bodies such as the FSA, although the reality is that allegations more often are the result of a party facing a major loss and reporting it to the authorities. Classic examples of credit card fraud conspiracies, mortgage fraud, or Missing Trader (MTIC) or other VAT frauds all come about because a person or persons (in the latter case HMRC) has lost money rapidly and suspiciously
wp
Hi blem-ished
You raised some interesting points above
As for what the government is doing, then the answer is to little and to late.
Blemain have been under investigation since 2009 after all this time you then se a fine of £2 million for CMC. This is an insult for all the people that have suffered thro the actions of this company.
In 2009 monarch recoveries made a profit of £9 million in one year, they run this scam for years and only get a fine of £2 million you can see why they run this scam, as even when they get caught they are very much still in profit.
As for what they are doing, is it criminal then I am of the opinion that it is but for someone to try and prove this or get the police to investigate then that is a task on its own.
When someone comes to a forum like this they are usually in some sort of trouble and the help they need is how to defend against a repossession, so all the things you mention about contacting media, MP, police, OFT/FOS wont really help with the specific problem.
In the long term then bringing blemain to the attention of the above then this is defiantly worth doing, but it takes someone with time, commitment and a passion for getting justice. ( don’t under estimate the work involved )
Now if you are looking at whether what they have done is criminal then you need to look at what I post below, but trying to get someone to do anything about it is a task on its own.
Below is not something I think any one should try and take on there own, but if they can get the police or a government regulatory body to take on then go for it.
An Introduction to the Fraud Law Framework
There is no single law which prohibits fraud. What lawyers call 'fraud law' is in reality covered by a mixture of different offences and common law (evolved and established legal principles). They range from offences covered by the theft act to the new offences of the Fraud Act 2006.
The Fraud Act 2006
Major reform in fraud law occurred with the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006. This means that on 15 January 2007 the old general offence of fraud was replaced by parts of the Fraud Act.
The Fraud Act created these new offences:
Making a false representation (section 2) monarch recoveries
Dishonestly failing to disclose information (section 3) monarch recoveries
Abuse of position (section 4) monarch recoveries
A further offence of conspiracy to defraud still exists. It is very broad and is often used as a "catch-all" where the prosecution would have difficulties for technical reasons to get a conviction for one of the new offences, but the prosecution have to show that more than one person was involved
The Dishonesty of the Defendant in a Fraud Allegation
It is a basic principle of fraud law that the prosecution must prove that the defendant was acting dishonestly when he or she did whatever has been alleged. This issue is often the key issue in many fraud trials. An example might be a situation where a defendant asks a business associate to lend him £20,000, having assured him that his or her minicab business is viable when it was actually on the edge of insolvency. The court would have to be sure that the defendant realised this and that he knew it was dishonest. The test for dishonesty is usually decided by the jury of 12 members of the public - it is a test that must be decided on the facts specific to each case.
The law says that the jury must be sure about whether the defendant has been dishonest by satisfying both stages of the legal dishonesty test (sometimes called the Gosh test).
The first stage of the test is that according to the standards of reasonable and honest people what was done must have been dishonest.
The second stage of the test is that the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was (by the standards of reasonable and honest people) dishonest.
The second part of this test means that even if someone does something which they believe to be justified (an example a judge once famously used is that of Robin Hood robbing from the rich to give to the poor), if they must have known that ordinary people would find it dishonest, then dishonesty is proven. In other words, it is the knowledge of the fact that the public view a type of action as dishonest, not agreement with that view, which proves dishonesty.
How Fraud Allegations Arise
Fraud investigations sometimes arise as a result of regulatory investigations or audits by regulatory bodies such as the FSA, although the reality is that allegations more often are the result of a party facing a major loss and reporting it to the authorities. Classic examples of credit card fraud conspiracies, mortgage fraud, or Missing Trader (MTIC) or other VAT frauds all come about because a person or persons (in the latter case HMRC) has lost money rapidly and suspiciously
wp
Comment