berksboy

W/g To Pay Back £540,000 ! ! !

54 posts in this topic

makes no sense to me that she should have to pay back the money

the law is an ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm! Quite a bit that comes out of our courts is indeed assinine, but this one? Is it really?

If a punter has a £150 hour, likes it, and comes back for a £1k over night, or a £2k week-end, and again and again (and she pays tax on it as part of her normal self-employed income) I don't think that the courts will come after her, wherever punter got it from.

If, however, punter starts throwing money at her, away and beyond her fee levels, I think most people would actually say that she ought to look gift horses in the mouth.

The same, surely, applies if punter throws money at his sisters, or his widowed mum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no sense to me that she should have to pay back the money

the law is an ass

An interesting comment. A transfer of £200,000 ( as reported ) to pay off the lady's mortgage would be considered a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency legislation if it was not paid as part of a commercial transaction where both sides received full value. Now, the lady's services may be so good that they are worth that amount, but somehow I doubt it. The same would apply whoever received the money. For the amount he stole, the man is sure to be made bankrupt, so restitution by her under bankruptcy rules would apply anyway.

Is the law an ass?--Well, if you were the victim of the theft, you wouldn't think so. If someone steals from you, and gives it to someone else, would you think you shold be able to get your money back from them. Of course, you would.

And that's without getting into the thorny discussion of immoral contracts......

Edited by georgem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting comment. A transfer of £200,000 ( as reported ) to pay off the lady's mortgage would be considered a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency legislation if it was not paid as part of a commercial transaction where both sides received full value. Now, the lady's services may be so good that they are worth that amount, but somehow I doubt it. The same would apply whoever received the money. For the amount he stole, the man is sure to be madebankrupt, so restitution by her under bankruptcy rules would apply anyway.

Is the law an ass?--Well, if you were the victim of the theft, you wouldn't think so. If someone steals from you, and gives it to someone else, would you think you shold be able to get your money back from them. Of course, you would.

And that's without getting into the thorny discussion of immoral contracts......

Basically you are trying to say that really she should have questioned why he was passing on so much money to her, being so generous and in reality she probably had a good idea he was passing on dubious funds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically you are trying to say that really she should have questioned why he was passing on so much money to her, being so generous and in reality she probably had a good idea he was passing on dubious funds?

To an extent, but she would be liable to pay it back in these circumstances whether she thought about it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, what kind of toys are Toys-R-us selling?

How could they not spot £4m going missing quite quickly?

£540,000 is an awful lot of visits to a WG. There is no fool like an old fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Silerado , looks like he was a busy bee ! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

makes no sense to me that she should have to pay back the money

the law is an ass

Makes nosense to me either since I do not know anything about the subject :P

However, I think I will have to agree Bill on this one.

What I would say I can see her job as being a factor as to why she would have to pay some of the money back. I am not so sure what are the points of law that deems this so?

Anybody else...??

Edited by Superego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she didn't realise that the money was stolen then she should have had more sense. Only a crook or an idiot gives so much cash away without thinking about getting value for money.

He should be chased for the bulk of the missing cash, but if he has given it way randomly then the receivers of the cash should also be chased up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure what are the points of law that deems this so?

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Thanks...

Would you like to direct us to a particular section??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep just seen on the local web rag that a WG is being told to pay back £540,000 ! Now i bet she is not a happy bunny as she has done the work for nowt , a bit unfair on her ? or not IF she knew were the money was coming from ?

http://www.getreadin...raudsters_money

My view remains the same as on the threads Silverado has posted up, he is the criminal, the WGs happily accepted the cash and gifts on offer as i would if a woman wished to lavish such on me. I dont see its up to me to know or even consider how the cash and/or gifts are being paid for, thats the responsibility of the giver. Clearly the law sees it differently and this is the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She isn't the first escort that this man gave large sums of stolen money to.

http://www.punternet...toys-r-us-poca/

http://www.punternet...e-20000-a-week/

http://www.punternet...19522-tartsrus/

Ms Dunbar received about £1.75m from him.

They didn't earn the money. I'd prosecute them for handling stolen goods.

I did not see this...

This would also be another factor why the lady concerned would have to pay the money back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view remains the same as on the threads Silverado has posted up, he is the criminal, the WGs happily accepted the cash and gifts on offer as i would if a woman wished to lavish such on me. I dont see its up to me to know or even consider how the cash and/or gifts are being paid for, thats the responsibility of the giver. Clearly the law sees it differently and this is the result.

Like I said I do not know much about this subject.

However, I suspect if he was not a fraudster and she not a WG, and perhaps in a different setting where it does not involve a very large company. Then what you say could well be the case in a court of law.

I don't know - Its just a guess on my part

Edited by Superego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said I do not know much about this subject.

However, I suspect if he was not a fraudster and she not a WG, and perhaps in a different setting where it does not involve a very large company. Then what you say could well be the case in a court of law.

I don't know - Its just a guess on my part

I don't think it matters how he came by his ill gotten gains, she should have realised when an inordinate amount of cash was being directed her way that something fishy was afoot. However greedy she might have been the payment of her £thousands mortgage should have rung bells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters how he came by his ill gotten gains, she should have realised when an inordinate amount of cash was being directed her way that something fishy was afoot. However greedy she might have been the payment of her £thousands mortgage should have rung bells.

Forgive my naivety...oops I mean her naivety :P

Why could she not merely believe that she had a rich client who was simply besotted by her? :wub:

We have seen that this is possible as with the Hernandez and Woolley murder saga

Edited by Superego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no different than if you buy an item in good faith which turns out to be stolen. It will be returned to the proper owner and you will end up with no goods and no money.

The onus is on you to make sure that everything is above board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can contrast these cases with that of Alan Hornby whole stole £85,000 and by all accounts spent most of it in the Manchester parlours.

http://menmedia.co.u...nd-life-of-vice

"A sex-addicted boss at an opticians firm stole £85,000 of company cash to fuel a secret sordid life.

Finance director Alan Hornby – a married dad-of-one – used the firm’s credit card to pay for three-times-a-week brothel visits and live internet sex shows......

He used the firm’s credit card to pay for £100-a-time visits to brothels and massage parlours, meals at restaurants, and live internet porn – including one sex show that cost £100."

The stolen money ceases to be recoverable property if "the person who obtains it on the disposal does so in good faith, for value and without notice that it was recoverable property.." (section 308 POCA 2002).

So the Manchester parlour girls (and parlour owners) kept the cash in the same way as the Asset Recovery Agency/SOCA can't recover the money that he spent buying his weekly shopping at ASDA.

In the ToysR'Us case Ms Wieck has to pay £540,000 and Ms Dunbar has to pay £1.75m. The judge had to decide whether the cash was obtained in good faith, for value and without notice that it was recoverable property.

In the case of Ms Dunbar "Judge Stephen John berated the call-girl over her charges for the sexual services she provided to a director of children's favourite firm Toys R Us.

Dawn Dunbar told the judge that although she realised her fees were 10-times the usual going rate, they were for services rendered to disgraced Paul Hopes.

Judge John calculated the weekly average she had received and questioned her, saying: "The amount is not £500 a week. It is not £1,000, or even £2,000 a week.

"It is £20,000 a week. How do you manage to evaluate your services - sex - at £20,000 a week?

"How do you justify that?"

"Their arrangement began with an agreed weekly fee of £500 for her services, before he requested that she leave the business and see him exclusively, for a weekly fee of £1,000."

It seems to me that anything above £1,000 per week was a tainted gift and constitutes recoverable property.

Martin Evans, prosecuting, said: "On her own best estimate, she (Dunbar) was entitled to perhaps £200,000 during this period.

"She in fact received in excess of £1,750,000. She received 10 times more than the valuation she put on the service that was provided"

She couldn't have got the following on £1,000 pw:

£25,000 Lexus GS300

£30,000 Toyota Landcruiser

£42,000 Lexus RS400h 4x4 car.

Properties in the UK

£60,000 plot of land in Nigeria

Nearly £400,000 in bank accounts

£132,000 Bentley Continental

£750,000 on houses, cars and holidays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no different than if you buy an item in good faith which turns out to be stolen. It will be returned to the proper owner and you will end up with no goods and no money.

The onus is on you to make sure that everything is above board.

I can understand but the example you give does not allude to refunding the difference also.

I can think of another example - maybe its not related - but it has happened a few timse when banks dispense more money than they are supposed to. In such instances

the money was not obtained in 'good faith' but yet it has been ruled if I remember correctly, that people in such instances were allowed to keep the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep just seen on the local web rag that a WG is being told to pay back £540,000 ! Now i bet she is not a happy bunny as she has done the work for nowt , a bit unfair on her ? or not IF she knew were the money was coming from ?

http://www.getreadin...raudsters_money

Did she give him receipts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like victim blaming to me. The victim in this case being the WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, there is nothing unusual in silly men throwing vast amounts of money at the women they have sex with, paid or unpaid so these girls will just have been thinking "weeyheeyy and they say pretty woman never happens in real life ". If these women have to pay back the money then so should the companies and businesses of ALL the people he paid anything too over the time he was committing the fraud, right down to the last penny otherwise its just targeting the girls as a means of getting fast cash back from an easy target. If he went to the bookies are they going to make William Hill hand over the fortunes he could have spent there...mmm doubt it somehow. Easy targets as I said.

I wonder who they will be prosecuting to scrape back the millions x

Edited by Chloe MKEscorts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, there is nothing unusual in silly men throwing vast amounts of money at the women they have sex with, paid or unpaid so these girls will just have been thinking "weeyheeyy and they say pretty woman never happens in real life ". If these women have to pay back the money then so should the companies and businesses of ALL the people he paid anything too over the time he was committing the fraud, right down to the last penny otherwise its just targeting the girls as a means of getting fast cash back from an easy target. If he went to the bookies are they going to make William Hill hand over the fortunes he could have spent there...mmm doubt it somehow. Easy targets as I said.

I wonder who they will be prosecuting to scrape back the millions x

An easy target because of the scale, not because of the occupation. Although you probably won't see it in the press, there will probably be plenty of others chased for money where it has been a gift ( clearly an element of that in the present case ) or where there has been some other action that has rendered the money repayable, and where it is traceable. The practicality and value for money in bringing recovery proceedings will be taken into account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now