Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Sols need £20,000 initial payment to defend dh - money we do not hav

120 replies

puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:29

Got letter from the solicitors the other day with some info that the police used to charge dh (can already see discrepancies in what originally told and what is now in statements). They are happy to represent dh but need £20,000 upfront to start with and costs could rise to £60,000+.
WE DON'T HAVE IT
Mil is currently helping to pay all our bill and general living expenses.
My parents are paying for shopping, nursery, days/evenings out etc.
Fil in well off, not sure if he is willing to help out with legal fees. If he does not dh will have to plead guilty as we can not afford the legal fees. He will give us the answer at the weekend.
The fate of my family lies with my fil, if he pays dh can plead not guilty, if he doesn't when we return to court on 13th July he will have to plead guilty which means he will be in prision by the end of august.
I am so very scared.
Thankyou for listening again

OP posts:
morningpaper · 31/05/2006 21:50

I don't understand how they can prosecute in cases where money isn't traced

foundintranslation · 31/05/2006 21:51

Surely it's their duty to investigate though? or is that yours? Angry I've no clue, where is the burden of proof in all this, is it with them or you?

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:51

They can get a court order to freeze assets if there is reasonable proof, to stop us getting rid of the evidence. Assets will then be frozen till the end of trial. Will would be allowed to pay monthly bills and have £500 spending moneyfor food etc but that is it.

OP posts:
Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:53

Regardless of whether the money is found, it can be seen to be with us at some point. That is all they are concerned with.
As far as the police are concerned they have investigated and got their man. It is now up to us to prove reasonable doubt.

OP posts:
Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:54

The money does not have to be traced, accordig to their evidence dh took it, that is the crime that has been committed, it is almost irrelevant to them where the money is now,

OP posts:
morningpaper · 31/05/2006 21:54

Haven't kept up with all this puddy, sorry

Was it ever discovered how the money LEFT your accounts? And where it went?

foundintranslation · 31/05/2006 21:55

Puddy, I wish I could help in more practical and useful ways than just listening.

If the worst comes to the worst and FIL won't help, it'll be a tiny drop in a huge ocean but I will give you what I can.

foundintranslation · 31/05/2006 21:57

X posts. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRACED?!? So anyone can steal someone's identity, shunt money through their account briefly and leave them framed for fraud? Shock
I'm gobsmacked.
Is there any precedent in cases like this where there has been some kind of identity theft (if that's the right term)?

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:58

foundintranslation, i do not know what to say. I am overwhelmed. Thankyou
Morningpaper. We do not know. The police took all our papers, the bank stopped talking to us and until they release evidence to our solicitors we will not know. We are only told what the police want us to know at the moment. It is so frustrating Angry

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 21:58

Was the money moved out of accounts via a computer-based transfer?

The burden of proof is on the SFO/police. But these sorts of cases are hairy and nasty, to put it mildly. Because of the very low conviction rate on fraud, they have changed/are changing the law so juries won't be used on fraud cases. I think the creation of the SFO (which replaces the computer crime unit) is a reaction to this, too.

foundintranslation · 31/05/2006 21:58

There were, IIRC, almost 9 months between the alleged incidents and your dh being suspended from work. Isn't the fact that your consumption/spending patterns (I assume) didn't change in that time worth anything?

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 21:59

That is right. If there is enough evidence that we took it that is all that matters. As far as they are concerned it could all be spent anyway so not traceable.
Don't know about precedents, i am assuming that is something our sol will look into for £20,000!!!

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 22:00

Not to play devil's avocado, but a sensible criminal wouldn't change spending habits in that time.

And I'd assume the money went off somewhere relatively untraceable, offshore presumably?

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 22:00

Nothing we say is worth anything apparently, we are liars and criminals and not to be believed Sad

OP posts:
Chandra · 31/05/2006 22:02

I have not seen you around since the inital thread about this months ago. I don't have words to express how unfair this is, do you have any suspicions of who did it.

If you can, sell the house, much better to live with your FIL for a while than to take the other option.

Good luck.

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 22:02

you are right nqc. A sensible criminal would also not use his own computer id's. log in under his name, use his own street name on the fake correspondance..... the list could go on an on!!

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 22:04

Presumably you're allowed expenses for defence, if they freeze your accounts?

NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 22:05

Some notes from DH:

  • check on your home insurance for legal cover
  • the defence get copies of everything the prosecution are using
  • go to the press? This is worth following up on? Maybe with your kids involved, risk of being homeless, risk of having to pleed guilty? This could be news, with the new SFO involved, etc etc?
foundintranslation · 31/05/2006 22:05

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? :(

How about your movements on the days the cheques were allegedly paid in? can you remember those?

  • Sorry, just me trying to be helpful, these are probably things you've been over with your sols. Just wish I could do more, is all. I've been following this whole horrendous saga from the beginning and it makes me very sad and angry for you all.
soapbox · 31/05/2006 22:06

Puddytats - this all sounds very strange!

IIRC the fraud was for a cheque for £30K that passed through your DH's account? The SFO would only be involved usually for frauds where more than £1m is at stake or where there is a significant international aspect to the fraud - or other crimes may be committed with the proceeds - e/g drugs or arms.

If the SFO are involved, then I am rather surprised that the police are investigating - the SFO are not usually superficial in the depth of their evidence gathering as far as I am aware.

I'm still unsure as to why they have not been able to trace the movement of the money? Where did it go after it left your account?

In my humble view, I would sell every possession I owned and beg every penny from every person I could before I would let my dog spend a night in prison, let alone my husband. Sell the house, sell every thing that moves on ebay, beg every penny you can from relatives, move in with your parents, do everything you possibly can to get the money you need to mount a defence. I cannot imagine not doing so in your position, I really can't. Prison for the average person in the street will in all liklihood ruin the rest of their life! Avoid it at all costs.

You need to find a fraud specialist that is contracted to the LSC. They do exist! You can access advocacy services (a barrister) through LSC too. Barristers in most cases are required to represent defendants in court - solicitors only prepare the case, barristers present it, so legal aid wouldn;t work unless you could access a barrister. You can also get expert witness services on legal aid too. Of course, this is subject to capital and income tests - which you may very well not meet - it would be highly unusual for your PILs financial support to be taken into account in such calculations, I believe.

You need to get all this straight - it all sounds very very confused to me - not a good place for you to be right now! I suggest you start with a visit to the CAB, who will work out with you what your options are.

NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 22:06

NB: DH isn't a lawyer, he's a computer professional. Just a bit involved in this sort of thing. Sorta.

Original poster
puddytats · 31/05/2006 22:06

I assume so. If fil does pay then that is from us and therefore nothing to do with us and if it is legal aid the money goes straight to the sols anyway so we would not see it

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 31/05/2006 22:06

normally the SFO don't take cases unless the fraud is over £1m - is this the case?

if so, I'm amazed they aren't looking at trying to reclaim the assets - I imagine the company is claiming on insurance, surely the insurance company wants to find out where the money went?

NotQuiteCockney · 31/05/2006 22:07

soapbox sounds like she has about a billion times better idea about what to do than I do!

foxinsocks · 31/05/2006 22:08

sorry, x-posted with soapbox (who said everything much better!)