why cant welfare fraud = Prison???

lightspeed

Hi

I wasnt sure how i should phrase the title but im frustrated everytime read of welfare fraud it never seems to result in a custodial sentence.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-woman-received-over-euro15000-in-childrens-allowance-while-working-in-australia-765478.html

So this woman from dun laoghaire decided to keep claiming her child benefits while working in Australia for 3 years.

She has now paid it back and ordered to give €500 to charity.

Like the maths of the situation clearly tell you its well worth the risk. Im sure there are probably plenty of people scamming the system and sure why not? If you get caught all that will happen is that you will have to pay it back with little to no penalties.

Its funny that had she been carrying out a business or making an income from inside the state and not paid taxes for 3 years, she would be hit with severe penalties.

Yet if you fraud welfare, dont worry about it just pay it back as you can with little to no penalties.

Peregrinus

Well, in that case she pleaded guilty, and she repaid all of the money. Either of those factors, and certainly both together, would normally mean a sentence of greatly reduced severity, within the range of sentencing possible for the offence.

It's generally true, in welfare fraud cases (and tax cases) that the State is much more concerned to get the money back than it is to send the offender to prison (which costs a lot, and can be seen as just throwing good money after bad). So custodial sentences for either are relatively rare.

lightspeed

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in that case she pleaded guilty, and she repaid all of the money. Either of those factors, and certainly both together, would normally mean a sentence of greatly reduced severity, within the range of sentencing possible for the offence.

It's generally true, in welfare fraud cases (and tax cases) that the State is much more concerned to get the money back than it is to send the offender to prison (which costs a lot, and can be seen as just throwing good money after bad). So custodial sentences for either are relatively rare.

Thats a fair point but id disagree with the argument that it should not result in jail sentence. Until people understand they could go to prison, welfare will never be viewed as a crime.

In this case having read more into the article, i realise that i actually may have been to quick to judge as it seems to indicate that she took it upon herself to resolve up returning to Ireland.

Although it does not state that specifically and not sure if it would end up in court if she did.

I also find it hard to believe she left forgetting to contact anyone to notify them to cancel her child benefits and also that she never once checked her bank balance in 3 years.

NIMAN

.... and right about now we will have people along to defend her, saying she stole nothing compared to the guys in suits.

Which is technically correct. Hasn't it been said that welfare or benefit fraud is quite a drop in the ocean compared to what people actually thinks goes on?

lightspeed

NIMAN wrote: »

.... and right about now we will have people along to defend her, saying she stole nothing compared to the guys in suits.

Which is technically correct. Hasn't it been said that welfare or benefit fraud is quite a drop in the ocean compared to what people actually thinks goes on?

Not quite sure what you mean about the second part. Do you mean that the welfare fraud that comes to the public attention is only drop in the ocean or are you saying its drop in the ocean compared to other types of fraud?

Im actually unemployed myself but starting a new job next week which is right when bonus for welfare recipients will be paid. I wont collect the dole next week obviously though and happy to be back working.

I know for a fact there still plenty of people who get paid in cash to collect the dole especially in construction industry.

With the high salaries negotiated through unions for electricians for example, employers dont want to pay such high salaries and employees want the amount their union wage dictates. A compromise between the two is to pay employee in cash, claim he working less hours so he can collect his dole. Also added benefit for employee as would result in less employer PRSI to pay.

If cash payments were for employees was outlawed, I reckon it would reduce welfare fraud.

mansize

Why? The cost of prison is far too high and what good does it serve?

Nollog

Wouldn't a jail sentence just cost you more tax money?

NIMAN

lightspeed wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean about the second part.

Tax avoidance and evasion costs the State a lot more than individuals fiddling the welfare system.

lightspeed

mansize wrote: »

Why? The cost of prison is far too high and what good does it serve?

it may deter people from welfare fraud. Theft should be a offence that puts you in prison.

welfare fraud is comes down to someone stealing money from the state that is not theirs to steal.

How often do we read about people with several prior convictions guilty of a crime.

By your logic why should we put them in prison when all evidence shows us they wont reform and its only going to cost the state lots of money.

lightspeed

NIMAN wrote: »

Tax avoidance and evasion costs the State a lot more than individuals fiddling the welfare system.

True but the penalties are quite large for tax evasion and can result in custodial sentence.

Im in not mistaken isnt that slab murphy guy in prison for tax evasion.

NIMAN

Doesn't it cost the taxpayer something like €100,000 annually to keep someone in prison?
No harm, but I don't fancy paying for that for every fiddler caught.

I am guessing the idea of having a criminal record, which I assume they will then have, would be enough to have an effect on their life to deter others?

NIMAN

lightspeed wrote: »

True but the penalties are quite large for tax evasion and can result in custodial sentence.

Im in not mistaken isnt that slab murphy guy in prison for tax evasion.

Yeah, a bit like Al Capone;)

Clampdown

This is what keeps you awake at 2:30 am?

People in this country who are actually dangerous are let walk around, we'd be better off to start jailing them first.

B.A._Baracus

She ran the risk fiddling the system but got caught. She was lucky enough to get a slap on the wrist. But who cares? Are people on boards really that wet behind the ears because I refuse to believe people are! :pac:

Do you think all tradesmen declare what they honestly earn?
Do you think all taxi men declare what they honestly earn?
Can you trust any Sole trader, LLC or Partnership to really declare what they honestly earn and not blowing out the ol' "expenses" etc.


Point is... people fiddle and that includes people on the dole.

pragmatic1

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

She ran the risk fiddling the system but got caught. She was lucky enough to get a slap on the wrist. But who cares? Are people on boards really that wet behind the ears because I refuse to believe people are! :pac:

Do you think all tradesmen declare what they honestly earn?
Do you think all taxi men declare what they honestly earn?
Can you trust any Sole trader, LLC or Partnership to really declare what they honestly earn and not blowing out the ol' "expenses" etc.


Point is... people fiddle and that includes people on the dole.

Yep. Most of Donegal were working in the north, England and Scotland for years and still claiming dole back home. This went on well into the mid to late 90s.

Most people are on some type of scam or another.

andekwarhola

Just because people want to see a public scourging doesn't mean that the logistics, outcome and cost of jailing people for such offences makes sense compared to simply recouping the money.

Irish Guitarist

Prison is too good for her. Hang her in public and then harvest her organs.

Turtyturd

NIMAN wrote: »

Doesn't it cost the taxpayer something like €100,000 annually to keep someone in prison?
No harm, but I don't fancy paying for that for every fiddler caught.

I am guessing the idea of having a criminal record, which I assume they will then have, would be enough to have an effect on their life to deter others?

The thing is €100,000 euro isn't being saved by her not being in prison because it is being spent on someone else.

Peregrinus

Turtyturd wrote: »

The thing is €100,000 euro isn't being saved by her not being in prison because it is being spent on someone else.

Unless you're suggesting that criminals currently serving sentences should be released to make space for people convicted of welfare fraud (and, if so, who do you have in mind for release?) then, yes, sending welfare frauds to prison does cost extra money.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in that case she pleaded guilty

She went one better than that.

When she returned from Australia, she noticed that the DSP had been paying into her Irish bank account, and voluntarily went to them herself. She started repaying the money but the DSP still pressed ahead with fraud charges.

It's hard to find a bigger shower of useless bastards than the Dept. of Social Protection. What a waste of money.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

She went one better than that.

When she returned from Australia, she noticed that the DSP had been paying into her Irish bank account, and voluntarily went to them herself. She started repaying the money but the DSP still pressed ahead with fraud charges.

It's hard to find a bigger shower of useless bastards than the Dept. of Social Protection. What a waste of money.

You need to read the newspaper report a bit critically, Seamus.

"Her solicitor told the court that when she returned she engaged immediately with the Department of Social Protection."

He's obviously going to put the best spin on things, isn't he? But even he doesn't say what you say.

He doesn't say that she engaged voluntarily, just "immediately" on her rerturn. That could mean that, while abroad, she ignored a stream of letters and queries from DSP. He also doesn't say that she was unaware of the child benefit being paid to her, and only discovered it on her return; he says "out of sight, out of mind", which could just mean that she ignored the, um, discrepancy while she was in Australia. If she genuinely was unaware that she was in receipt of the money, and repaid it in full as soon as she found out she had it, I think she would have had a good defence to the charge. But she pleaded guilty.

Besides, we're told that she returned to the country in August 2014 (and "immediately engaged" with the DSP) but she has only "recently completed" paying back the money. That tells me that the money wasn't quietly sitting in her account; by the time she "immediately engaged" with DSP it was gone, and it took her two years and a bit to pay it back, presumably in instalments. Her having spent the money doesn't really fit with the idea that she was unaware that it was there.

Oodoov

I'm more concerned about why bankers, politicians, developers, councilors etc... arent doing hard time for fraud.

westcoast66

seamus wrote: »

When she returned from Australia, she noticed that the DSP had been paying into her Irish bank account, and voluntarily went to them herself...

What a story! Pity they don't have the internet in Australia and she couldn't check her bank account until she got back!

ohnonotgmail

Has anybody mentioned onions and garlic yet?