Woman gets three-year suspended sentence for welfare fraud - Fair or...?

vicwatson

A 33-year-old woman, who admitted flying to and from Ireland to fraudulently claim €43,000 in social welfare payments, has received a three-year suspended prison sentence.

http://www.rte.ie/news/crime-and-legal/2013/0429/388546-social-welfare-cork/

ash23

Seems fair enough.

She paid it back, co-operated with the gardai and is remorseful. No sense in throwing her in jail I think. She has her Masters and a decent enough future ahead of her. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt (a.k.a a suspended sentence).

Crooked Jack

vicwatson wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/crime-and-legal/2013/0429/388546-social-welfare-cork/

We had a similar story in Newry earlier this week except the amount she had rung up was much higher. She also got off with a suspended sentence but on top of that none of the local papers are allowed to print anything about it because after she went to court she all of a sudden developed "suicidal tendencies" and her neighbours finding out what a scobey prick she is jsut might tip her over the edge.

Meanwhile, I saw a young guy who stole a pack of razors because he had a job interview and if he bought them he wouldnt have been able to afford the bus, get a £500 fine and lose the bloody job because of the press coverage.

Courts system in Ireland is a shambles

vicwatson

Poll added

drdeadlift

Its a ****ing suspended sentence

Fighting Irish

.

A 33-year-old woman, who admitted flying to and from Ireland to fraudulently claim €43,000 in social welfare payments, has received a three-year suspended prison sentence.

Sibyl Montague, of Cois Coillte, Tivoli in Cork, had pleaded guilty to flying home once a month over a four-year period to sign on for jobseekers' allowance.

The court was told that she had repaid the money in full.

Judge Patrick J Moran said that when imposing a sentence he has to ask what benefit it would be.

He said that in this case he believed that the woman had learnt her lesson.

Earlier, Defence Counsel Siobhán Lankford told Cork Circuit Criminal Court that this was a case of grave dishonesty, but that it was an unusual case.

Her client was very remorseful and had co-operated fully when arrested by gardaí in October 2012.

She said the monies had been fully repaid and this had been at some cost.

The woman's mother had to sell some of her belongings, her father came up with some money, her cousin and two friends made up the rest.

She told the court that her client and her sister had been responsible for looking after their ill mother from an early age.

Her parents had separated when she was 12 years old.

Ms Lankford said Montague carried out the fraud while she was living in very poor circumstances in London, living from hand-to-mouth while studying for a Masters degree.

She said her client pleaded guilty as soon as possible, the gardaí were satisfied she would not reoffend and the DPP had been happy for the case to be dealt with at District Court level, but the judge there had refused jurisdiction.

Angron

I was going to say it's not fair that the sentence was suspended, but then reading that she did pay back the amount, and does seem to have learnt her lesson, it's reasonable enough.

Nodin

vicwatson wrote: »

Poll added

A gallows one, I presume.

Frank Black

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Meanwhile, I saw a young guy who stole a pack of razors because he had a job interview and if he bought them he wouldnt have been able to afford the bus, get a £500 fine and lose the bloody job because of the press coverage.

Courts system in Ireland is a shambles

So I guess your alternative proposal is to let off anyone who shoplifts as long as they come up with a good 'hard-luck' story, and stop the press from attending and reporting on all court proceedings.

Great work Einstein - can you be our next Minister for Justice and Communications rolled into one?

Marsden

Too lenient I think, if this was the way it worked all the time everybody might as well rob anything that's not nailed down. That way if you do get caught you can just hand it back and not be punished.

jam_mac_jam

No, its not fair, she stole a load of money. I would have given her a few months..

discus

Living it up abroad, living off our hard paid taxes. Should have had her liberty denied, if even for a bit.

Shenshen

She paid back the money. Where's the point in wasting that money and more on top to put her in jail?

Angron

discus wrote: »

Living it up abroad, living off our hard paid taxes. Should have had her liberty denied, if even for a bit.

Assuming the article is accurate, I'd hardly call "Living hand to mouth" living it up.

Crooked Jack

Frank Black wrote: »

So I guess your alternative proposal is to let off anyone who shoplifts as long as they come up with a good 'hard-luck' story, and stop the press from attending and reporting on all court proceedings.

Great work Einstein - can you be our next Minister for Justice and Communications rolled into one?

No, my alternative proposal is some consistency in sentencing, sentences that represent the seriousness of the actual crime and a bit of cop on from judges.
Im certainly not in favour of the press thing because that would put me out of a job and then id be the one stealing razors. To shave my back however, because I have a beard.

lau1247

Shenshen wrote: »

She paid back the money. Where's the point in wasting that money and more on top to put her in jail?

crimes (even if it is relatively small in comparison with big ones) are not acceptable and should not be acceptable.

That's why the punishment is there to deter other people from trying to do the same thing.. otherwise everyone can cheat they way through fraud and when get caught, just give it back.. if don't get caught, get to keep it???

It is not about wasting money to put her in jail, it should be more about sending a message out that 'if you do the crime, you will do the time' when you get caught..

Lando Griffin

He said that in this case he believed that the woman had learnt her lesson.

She certainly did, she learnt so many lessons she now has a masters.

McDermotX

No. Its not right.

Suspended sentence is probably right, as the last thing we need is more prison space filled up at our additional cost. But she should certainly have been made put to work/community service etc in order to properly atone for her fraud.
Paying back the money (it says in full, not 'plan to pay back', which I assume means its all back and accounted for) and saying 'sorry' isn't enough IMO, and certainly doesn't suggest remorse. (Plus, am I wrong in assuming the money was only paid back when she was rumbled, or did the authorities only cop on when someone was sending them money ?)

It's not a bleedin' personal loan FFS.

Yakult

Why cant we make examples of people in cases like this? Surely the sentence (or lack of) will only encourage others. While a tougher sentence would have at least showed that they give a **** about welfare fraud.

Shenshen

lau1247 wrote: »

crimes (even if it is relatively small in comparison with big ones) are not acceptable and should not be acceptable.

That's why the punishment is there to deter other people from trying to do the same thing.. otherwise everyone can cheat they way through fraud and when get caught, just give it back.. if don't get caught, get to keep it???

It is not about wasting money to put her in jail, it should be more about sending a message out that 'if you do the crime, you will do the time' when you get caught..

Deterrence has been quite clearly shown to not be related to the severity of the punishment, but rather to the probability of getting caught.

In other words, you will not deter people from welfare fraud by imposing severe sentences. You will deter them if you are able to make them feel that it's very likely that they will get caught. And in that case, the simple threat of having to pay it all back would be quite enough in and off itself.

Don't waste money on putting people into jail, spend it instead on hiring people to find more welfare frauds and retrieve those funds.

yop

Bankers lost (Stole) a load of money and our politicians flitter (steal) our money day after day. Don't see them getting jail either.

vicwatson

Nodin wrote: »

A gallows one, I presume.

Reading it to find out would be the intelligent thing to do;)

newport2

So the moral of the story is go ahead and fleece the state for what you can. Two outcomes

1 You don't get caught, you're in the money
2 You get caught. Say sorry and give it back.

So, you're set to gain say €40,000, worst possible scenario is give it back and "show" remorse. Lots of people will support you because you said sorry and our jails are full.

And we wonder why we get cute hoars in politics and other influential positions in Ireland.

discus

I'm presuming that this is her website?!

http://www.sibylmontague.com/

What the hell is this?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fllSm6xUlhY

Turns out she completed her MA in 2011, but was claiming dole while living in London 'til Oct 2012.

http://visualartists.ie/news/sibyl-montague-wins-wexford-emerging-visual-artist-award/

leonidas83

yop wrote: »

Bankers lost (Stole) a load of money and our politicians flitter (steal) our money day after day. Don't see them getting jail either.

So two wrongs make a right, ridiculous post. When people stop using the bankers & politicians as excuses to take the piss themselves we might actually get somewhere with this crisis

becost

Correct me if I'm wrong but she still has a fraud/theft conviction that will damage future job prospects and limit international travel?

Rented Mule

Wait. She spent it on getting a Masters degree and not on coke and hookers ??

BURN HER !!!

elstingeo

She paid back all the money and was in a tough situation. All those factors from her childhood might possibly influence the case as she cared for her mam at a young age so maybe she developed some type of anxiety towards not being able to look after her own self.

Any one on here that has been a poor, broke student will know what it's like with little to no financial backing whatsoever. Although I'm not justifying the welfare fraud itself, it's somewhat understandable but in no way is it acceptable nor will it ever be. Hopefully she won't do it again.

lau1247

Shenshen wrote: »

Deterrence has been quite clearly shown to not be related to the severity of the punishment, but rather to the probability of getting caught.

In other words, you will not deter people from welfare fraud by imposing severe sentences. You will deter them if you are able to make them feel that it's very likely that they will get caught. And in that case, the simple threat of having to pay it all back would be quite enough in and off itself.

Don't waste money on putting people into jail, spend it instead on hiring people to find more welfare frauds and retrieve those funds.

It is related not matter you like it or not!!

If the country set a strict law that you get lock up for 50 year for fraud (No excuses or suspended sentences) and if you get caught, do you think people will think twice before they begin to even contemplate to do it?? I would think that the severity would deter people from doing it in the first place. Granted I agree that there are odd balls out there that will still do it but it will stop a lot more from happening or re-occuring.

I stand with my original post, if you don't set punishment as example, people will still keep doing it again and again.. that's why jail is there in the first place..

Newport2 post basically sums up the situation if you don't set punishment to deter fraudster

newport2 wrote: »

So the moral of the story is go ahead and fleece the state for what you can. Two outcomes

1 You don't get caught, you're in the money
2 You get caught. Say sorry and give it back.

So, you're set to gain say €40,000, worst possible scenario is give it back and "show" remorse. Lots of people will support you because you said sorry and our jails are full.

And we wonder why we get cute hoars in politics and other influential positions in Ireland.

discus

elstingeo wrote: »

She paid back all the money and was in a tough situation. All those factors from her childhood might possibly influence the case as she cared for her mam at a young age so maybe she developed some type of anxiety towards not being able to look after her own self.

Any one on here that has been a poor, broke student will know what it's like with little to no financial backing whatsoever. Although I'm not justifying the welfare fraud itself, it's somewhat understandable but in no way is it acceptable nor will it ever be. Hopefully she won't do it again.

As you can see from the links I've posted above, not only did she have the gall to claim the dole illegally, she was spending it in another country while she was living in London. So if it's ok for her, is it ok for citizens of other european countries to claim dole and fly in to collect it once a month?

She chose to live in London. She chose to complete a masters and put herself in that financial position. Why should we fund it?

Son Of A Vidic

leonidas83 wrote: »

yop wrote: »

Bankers lost (Stole) a load of money and our politicians flitter (steal) our money day after day. Don't see them getting jail either.

So two wrongs make a right, ridiculous post. When people stop using the bankers & politicians as excuses to take the piss themselves we might actually get somewhere with this crisis

Ridiculous post you say? Was that a self-diagnosis of your own contribution? Because the rest of your post really suggests it was.

Shenshen

lau1247 wrote: »

It is related not matter you like it or not!!

If the country set a strict law that you get lock up for 50 year for fraud (No excuses or suspended sentences) and if you get caught, do you think people will think twice before they begin to even contemplate to do it?? I would think that the severity would deter people from doing it in the first place. Granted I agree that there are odd balls out there that will still do it but it will stop a lot more from happening or re-occuring.

I stand with my original post, if you don't set punishment as example, people will still keep doing it again and again.. that's why jail is there in the first place..

Newport2 post basically sums up the situation if you don't set punishment to deter fraudster

By that logic, there should be next to no cases murder in the USA, seeing as in many parts the punishment can be death.

Punishment doesn't deter any criminal, the chance of getting caught does.

yop

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Ridiculous post you say? Was that a self-diagnosis of your own contribution? Because the rest of your post really suggests it was.

Not a ridiculous post at all, its the truth I am afraid. If they don't bring people to order who took millions then they aren't going to put someone in jail who took a few thousand.

Unregistered.

A hefty fine and/or Community Service would have been fair. She repaid money which, although she may not have had any more, was not hers in the first place. The suspended sentence and merely repaying what she owed is not fair IMO.

JustAddWater

Shenshen wrote: »

She paid back the money. Where's the point in wasting that money and more on top to put her in jail?

Not a waste of money if it tells other people (in a broke country with everyone thinking they're entitled to everything, that also has big welfare fraud problems)
that welfare fraud in no circumstances will be tolerated

She didn't lead a lavish lifestyle? Ah we'll then...

She stole for 4 years and knew damn well it was wrong. She may not be living a lavish lifestyle but she's living one funded by me. That's what's not fair here

Scruffles

boo hoo.....she was living in london,poor whilst doing a masters degree.
a masters degree is a choice not an entitlement,she shoud have chose to do it/put it off till a time she is in better money circumstances,that is absolutely no excuse to con the benefits-its genuine claimers who end up suffering as a result when foaming at the mouth ignorants use her to generalize everyone recieving benefits.

paying back what she stole isnt making things right,it wasnt her money to begin with so the least she shoud have done is pay it back.
perhaps they coud have made her do community service; working in hostels for the homeless,residential homes,citizens advice etc-all areas greatly affected by poverty and dealing with a genuine acute need for benefits.

blade1

Did she not at least receive a fine??

Ray Palmer

lau1247 wrote: »

It is related not matter you like it or not!!

Actually the point you missed is it isn't related like you think. They have proved this time and time again. Threat of being caught is the best form of deterrent there is.

If tomorrow they increased the fine for breaking lights it would reduce the breaking of lights for a short time and then it would return to normal. If however there were cameras on each light and a smaller fine was issued on every instance you would reduce the breaking of light permanently.

The human brain is wired for this risk versus reward. The risk is being caught not the fine. If you do something a 20 times with no negative outcome you don't believe you will get caught 21st time. It is just the way we are.

old hippy

It's a fair enough sentence, yes.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

becost wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but she still has a fraud/theft conviction that will damage future job prospects and limit international travel?

I would tend to agree but the issue here is that this country's justice system has zero consistency. We allow people to walk free for violent assault one day and lock people up for crimes that are clearly of a less serious nature the next.

Here are two examples of people getting locked up for stealing a whole lot less:

http://www.galwaynews.ie/24011-brothers-jailed-stealing-city-parking-meters

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15124

VinLieger

You need to make an example of welfare frauds, simply repaying the money is not a deterrent and i doubt naming and shaming is either, there needs to be a significant punishment to deter others

Capt'n Midnight

Shenshen wrote: »

She paid back the money. Where's the point in wasting that money and more on top to put her in jail?

To deter the culture that views considers the worst case of committing fraud is that you have to pay the money back in easy instalments.


Far too many of our business people and politicians have gotten away with stuff like this , and in many cases one suspects that they got to keep amounts that weren't discovered or proven so on average they may have benefited even when caught. :mad:


Remember the tens of thousands who failed to sign on during the Icelandic ash cloud , what was the outcome there ?

bazza1

She was able to repay €43K...just like that? :eek: Was there a penalty on top like if you underpay tax or not pay your household charge? Seems pretty well planned to me, to fly in and out and collect! Very tough on those people who rely on SW and cuts, to see someone slapped on the wrist and told that they are bold!
Far from being a disincentive, this suspended sentence puts no fear into others who are doing this.

elstingeo

She chose to do it yes.. That's true. We don't all make the best decisions in life and maybe the common sense thing to do would of been to leave college etc. But sometimes when some people get so deep into things, be it college or whatever. They get anxious of the fact of leaving and probably not having the qualification. I agree with what you're saying and we should not of funded it at her expense.

What I will say is, as long as there's a system in place, e.g. the dole, loopholes will be found and it will be abused. And that's just life. It comes hand in hand with it.

Solair

I'd say community service would be a reasonable sentence.

She sounds like she's genuinely very repentant and I really don't think there's any point in wasting more state resources locking up people on this kind of thing.

We need to be locking up a lot note violent criminals though and need the space in the system to fit them!

Stuff like this, unpaid fines, non huge scale tax fraud etc should be dealt with through community service.

lardossan

thank god the judge used facts and a sense of balance in the sentencing instead of the monstrous arguments of "making an example" or pure vindictiveness displayed here. 3 years sentence, criminal record, pictures all over the media. Seems more than fair considering the background of this person. The courts are for delivering justice, not to satisfy your barbaric sense of vengeance, move to Saudi Arabia if you want to see public hangings.

SEPT 23 1989

What would you get for the theft of billions from the taxpayer?

Solair

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What would you get for the theft of billions from the taxpayer?

A promotion if you live in any EU country or the states!

Or at worst a golden handshake and a pension that would make a 17th century aristocrat blush!

Capt'n Midnight

Solair wrote: »

Stuff like this, unpaid fines, non huge scale tax fraud etc should be dealt with through community service.

Depending on the levels involved.

€43 grand vs. how much tax is paid by the average person on the average wage ?


Rehabilitation should be the goal. But we know that there are large levels of fraud at all levels of Irish society so deterrence is also needed.

Why can't we set CAB on those responsible for the financial mess ?
Far richer pickings.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0426/385861-criminal-assets-bureau-report/

Investigations by the Criminal Assets Bureau in 2011 led to almost €6 million being returned to the Exchequer.
...
A further €454,000 was collected in overpaid social welfare benefits in 2011.

yop

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What would you get for the theft of billions from the taxpayer?

Nicht, nada a "ah sure isn't he great" and a job in the Dail/government quango, a visit from the cops every year so they appear like they are investigating.

cade

The suspended sentence is correct I believe, no point in spending more money locking the woman up in prison. I would've liked to see a fine of at least a few thousand euro imposed on her also, and a few hundread hours of community service too. I wouldn't see that as too severe.

Then again, in general I am rather against people who steal from the state, deface public property and transport.