Hypothetical "Con"

GM228

Purely hypothetical based on something I saw on a TV show.

A person cons someone into signing a cheque for X amount to cover paying into a non existent bogus scheme, however the person actually has no intention of actually cashing the cheque, but rather just keeps it as a souvenir or frames it etc - in other words the entire "con" was just a joke and there is no monetary or personal gain on one side or loss on the other.

Let's forget about the aspect of trying to prove if there was intent or not, this is purely hypothetical so we'll assume intent is not an issue, however with the key element of not intending to or actually cashing the cheque what crime/s if any could someone be guilty of?

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Purely hypothetical based on something I saw on a TV show.

A person cons someone into signing a cheque for X amount to cover paying into a non existent bogus scheme, however the person actually has no intention of actually cashing the cheque, but rather just keeps it as a souvenir or frames it etc - in other words the entire "con" was just a joke and there is no monetary or personal gain on one side or loss on the other.

Let's forget about the aspect of trying to prove if there was intent or not, this is purely hypothetical so we'll assume intent is not an issue, however with the key element of not intending to or actually cashing the cheque what crime/s if any could someone be guilty of?

Theft.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

Theft.

Theft of what though?

The person dosn't intend to cash the cheque so there is no theft, theft must involve an intention of depriving the owner of property/cash etc.

As i said in my OP there is no intent.

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Theft of what though?

The person dosn't intend to cash the cheque so there is no theft, theft must involve an intention of depriving the owner of property/cash etc.

He is keeping the cheque itself. The owner of the cheques has had to pay stamp duty on it and will have to pay for another cheque to replace it.

drunkmonkey

It's illegal to write a cheque if you don't have the funds to cover it, as for destroying a signed cheque I don't see the crime.
As far as I know it's also illegal to deface money, like writing on a 20 euro note.

endacl

Crime of the century, dude.

4ensic15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's illegal to write a cheque if you don't have the funds to cover it, as for destroying a signed cheque I don't see the crime.
As far as I know it's also illegal to deface money, like writing on a 20 euro note.

There is no suggestion that there were no funds to cover the cheque or that it was written with the intention of deceiving the recipient. There is no suggestion that there is any intention by the recipient to destroy the cheque. No mention is made of writing on a bank note.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

He is keeping the cheque itself. The owner of the cheques has had to pay stamp duty on it and will have to pay for another cheque to replace it.

Possibly theft, but some banks only charge stamp duty on a cheque which is drawn down on, secondly the bank owns the cheque not the person who's name it's issued in, so in that case would theft still apply?

Would someone realistically be charged for theft over a .50c stamp dutied piece of paper?

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is no suggestion that there were no funds to cover the cheque or that it was written with the intention of deceiving the recipient. There is no suggestion that there is any intention by the recipient to destroy the cheque. No mention is made of writing on a bank note.

As I said this is purely hypothetical, person A writes the cheque (they have sufficient funds), person B who performed the "con" has no intention of actually cashing or gaining from the cheque or allowing person A suffer a loss, they frame the cheque as a souvenir!

Oh and in this hypothetical situation the bank only applies stamp duty to cheques which are drawn on and the bank own the cheque.

My understanding is that no crime/s have been committed?

4ensic15

GM228 wrote: »

Possibly theft, but some banks only charge stamp duty on a cheque which is drawn down on, secondly the bank owns the cheque not the person who's name it's issued in, so in that case would theft still apply?

Would someone realistically be charged for theft over a .50c stamp dutied piece of paper?

All banks charge on issue of the book. The person will have to order another book 1 cheque sooner. there is no lower value limit on theft. I saw a guy in Court yesterday charged with stealing €12 worth of goods.

GM228

4ensic15 wrote: »

All banks charge on issue of the book. The person will have to order another book 1 cheque sooner. there is no lower value limit on theft. I saw a guy in Court yesterday charged with stealing €12 worth of goods.

Not all banks do, KBC for example don't, they charge €3.17 per cheque drawn down on which includes the .50c stamp duty, they don't charge per book issued.

So lets say this person issued a KBC cheque!

Speedwell

If the person frames the cheque, then presumably it has a value, perhaps for collectors. Whatever the value is would, I guess, be the amount of the theft (receiving something under false pretenses).

L1011

4ensic15 wrote: »

He is keeping the cheque itself. The owner of the cheques has had to pay stamp duty on it and will have to pay for another cheque to replace it.

Most banks charge stamp duty when the cheque is cashed these days - if your bank is charging upfront and holding on to the cash for the utter age it can take to use them you may wish to change bank!

4ensic15

L1011 wrote: »

Most banks charge stamp duty when the cheque is cashed these days - if your bank is charging upfront and holding on to the cash for the utter age it can take to use them you may wish to change bank!

The banks charge for the cheques as well.

L1011

4ensic15 wrote: »

The banks charge for the cheques as well.

Nearly always when used, not when supplied.

FortySeven

Obtaining by deception would leave the intent on the deceiver to prove innocence. If the perpetrator can't demonstrate a lack of intent and the victim wanted to press on with conviction then the physical evidence, (the cheque) and the victims testimony would sway any jury to convict.

It's a crap defence that you stole something but you weren't going to spend it. Never works.

brian_t

GM228 wrote: »

there is no monetary or personal gain on one side or loss on the other.

The person who wrote the cheque will lose 6 months interest on the "X amount" while it is sitting in his current account instead of being in a deposit account.

(after 6 months the cheque will be stale)

Steve

Presumably it's not theft as nothing (substantial) was stolen, however,

GM228 wrote: »

signing a cheque for X amount to cover paying into a non existent bogus scheme

Is it not fraud?

Grolschevik

Let's give this hypothetical more meat!

Someone persuades a celebrity (who usually refuses to give autographs) to write a cheque for a charity cause.

Cheque is never cashed, nor handed over, or maybe it's a non-existent or defunct charity.

Cheque kept safe until it's void, then framed, and eventually put up for auction as an autograph at a later time when that autographed cheque might be worth something.

There was no intention to profit monetarily from the deception at the time the signature was sought, but said celebrity later died (or something).

Discuss.

Steve

Grolschevik wrote: »

Let's give this hypothetical more meat.

Someone persuades a celebrity (who usually refuses to give autographs) to write a cheque for a charity cause.

Cheque is never cashed, nor handed over, or maybe it's a non-existent or defunct charity.

Cheque kept safe until it's void, then framed and eventually put up for auction as an autograph when that autographed cheque might be worth something.

Discuss.

Signature = personal information = DPA?

davo10

Better Call Saul episode per chance?

eeguy

It may technically be illegal, but would anyone pursue you for it?

Can you claim for loss of interest since you kept money in a current account on the expectation a cheque would be cashed?

Would the Gardai or the courts be interested in the case?

Highly doubt it.

Grolschevik

davo10 wrote: »

Better Call Saul episode per chance?

I was actually thinking, what if Sheldon Cooper ultimately tried to sell the restraining order signed by Stan Lee...

eeguy

Steve wrote: »

Presumably it's not theft as nothing (substantial) was stolen, however,

Is it not fraud?

Doubtful since no money actually moves.

If I told you I had a fantastic scheme and you promised to pay X amount on a legal document, but I never followed up, would it be illegal on my part?

If it's a contract, the there's no benefit on my side, since I don't claim the money.

Steve

eeguy wrote: »

Doubtful since no money actually moves.

If I told you I had a fantastic scheme and you promised to pay X amount on a legal document, but I never followed up, would it be illegal on my part?

If it's a contract, the there's no benefit on my side, since I don't claim the money.

Fraud doesn't need a monetary transaction.

FortySeven

Grolschevik wrote: »

Let's give this hypothetical more meat!

Someone persuades a celebrity (who usually refuses to give autographs) to write a cheque for a charity cause.

Cheque is never cashed, nor handed over, or maybe it's a non-existent or defunct charity.

Cheque kept safe until it's void, then framed, and eventually put up for auction as an autograph at a later time when that autographed cheque might be worth something.

There was no intention to profit monetarily from the deception at the time the signature was sought, but said celebrity later died (or something).

Discuss.

Section 6, theft and fraud.

Making gain or causing loss by fraud or deception.

GM228

davo10 wrote: »

Better Call Saul episode per chance?

Spot on!

Loosely based on an episode of Better Call Saul.

GM228

Steve wrote: »

Presumably it's not theft as nothing (substantial) was stolen, however,

GM228 wrote: »

signing a cheque for X amount to cover paying into a non existent bogus scheme

Is it not fraud?

Normally yes, but there is no actual non existent bogus scheme, it's just part of the story, there is no actual intent to defraud or make a gain, so is it still fraud? Fraud like theft must involve an intent to make a gain on one side and a loss on the other.

brian_t

eeguy wrote: »

Can you claim for loss of interest since you kept money in a current account on the expectation a cheque would be cashed?

The OP saiid there would be no loss involved. He was wrong.

eeguy wrote: »

It may technically be illegal, but would anyone pursue you for it?
Would the Gardai or the courts be interested in the case?
Highly doubt it.

The OP asked if a crime had been committed not whether a court case would ensue,

GM228

Steve wrote: »

Signature = personal information = DPA?

But the celebrity has died as per Grolscheviks scenario, as the person has not ever handed over the check then data protection dosn't apply before they died and can't apply afterwards.

GM228

brian_t wrote: »

The OP saiid there would be no loss involved. He was wrong.

Not necessarily.

brian_t wrote: »

The person who wrote the cheque will lose 6 months interest on the "X amount" while it is sitting in his current account instead of being in a deposit account.

(after 6 months the cheque will be stale)

Someone may always keep a substantial amount of money in a current account and waiting for a cheque to clear or not may not necessarily mean any loss of interest to someone.

GM228

FortySeven wrote: »

Section 6, theft and fraud.

Making gain or causing loss by fraud or deception.

But there must be an intention of making a gain or causing a loss, let's say at the time there was no intention, it was purely for fun, then there's no gain or loss by deception.

Does the fact thay the signatory dies later and the person may then decide to make money from the signature change that status?

Steve

GM228 wrote: »

But there must be an intention of making a gain or causing a loss, let's say at the time there was no intention, it was purely for fun, then there's no gain or loss by deception.

I would guess that a defense of 'there was no intention of making a gain or causing a loss' would be hard fought but lets say it was successful.
The offence would then revert to theft.

CJA 2001
4.-(1)
"a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it."

4.-(2)
"consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes."

Does the fact thay the signatory dies later and the person may then decide to make money from the signature change that status?

No. Ownership transfers to the estate, not the thief.

FortySeven

GM228 wrote: »

But there must be an intention of making a gain or causing a loss, let's say at the time there was no intention, it was purely for fun, then there's no gain or loss by deception.

Does the fact thay the signatory dies later and the person may then decide to make money from the signature change that status?

If proving a lack of intent was easy, there would be a lot of empty prisons.