Rekha Patel loses her house

[Burnaby49]

My mother worked in "the mills of Lancashire" in her early youth and during the war, specifically at the weaving trade. As soon as the war ended she abandoned Britain and emigrated to Vancouver. I'm certainly not going to complain about her decision. Being a retiree in Vancouver is a hell of a lot better than being one in Nelson, her wartime home. Nelson makes Bolton look pretentiously upscale.

[aesmith]

The legal basis would be quite firm anyway. If the card was being used criminally then anything bought with it would either belong to the card owner or the bank. The criminal wouldn't have proper title to the scratch-card and therefore they would have no right to any benefit from it.

So the original card owner should get the £4M? I can see the logic there. However it seems to me like Camelot are looking for a technical loophole to avoid paying out at all. Other options might be a proceeds of crime order, so Camelot pay out but they don't get to keep it.

[longdog]

So the original card owner should get the £4M? I can see the logic there. However it seems to me like Camelot are looking for a technical loophole to avoid paying out at all. Other options might be a proceeds of crime order, so Camelot pay out but they don't get to keep it.

It's not a loophole. The scratch-card is stolen property by virtue of having been bought with a stolen bank card and they don't have to pay out any more than they would have to pay out if they had just snatched the card and run out of the shop. For one thing it states quite clearly in the rules that dishonestly obtained tickets are void and for another it's a basic principle of law that you don't have a right to profit by your crimes.

If they'd used the card to draw cash out of an ATM they might have an arguable case that they bought the scratch-card with money they already had obtained honestly... But they didn't. It was bought directly with a stolen card which means the scratch-card was never legally theirs in the first place. They don't have a leg to stand on.

The owner of the debit card has no right to the winnings are there was never a contractual agreement between him and Camelot. That being said it would be great publicity for Camelot to pay the owner of the debit card the £4,000,000 and it would be the best punishment ever for the two morons. Imagine it.... "I've won four millions quid".... "ARRRRRRGH!!!!! They've given it to somebody else". That would be a regret of suicide inducing proportions.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

However it seems to me like Camelot are looking for a technical loophole to avoid paying out at all.

That is not how it works. Camelot do not get to keep unpaid money. This might have something more to do with it:

In December 2016, Camelot was fined £3 million by the Gambling Commission over an apparent ticket fraud. A jackpot winner in 2009 had allegedly conspired with a Camelot employee to claim £2.5 million in prize money using a bogus ticket. Although police did not have enough evidence to bring a prosecution, the commission found that Camelot had breached the terms of its operating licence in failing to investigate the veracity of the prize claim before paying out

[TheHallouminati]

Oh dear, it looks like Rekha's barrister is in even more trouble. Fresh from his 3-year ban from practising he now has to face the Bar Standards Board in July...

The BSB added that Hendron is due to appear before a disciplinary tribunal on a separate matter on Thursday 25-Friday 26 July 2019. A charge sheet on the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication website states that Hendron is accused of “behaving in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in a barrister or in the profession” and “failing to comply with a decision of the Legal Ombudsman”.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/henr ... onviction/

[exiledscouser]

The scratch-card is stolen property by virtue of having been bought with a stolen bank card

I think one way of looking at this is that the £4m is the 'fruits of a poisoned tree'.

A stolen card appears to have been repeatedly used to scoop up as many lottery cards as possible at the "£30 a go" contactless EPOS outlets in newsagents/off-licences etc wherever these scratch cards are sold. The baddies will have spent what they will have thought at the time to have been a most successful evening scratching away, eventually finding a winner.

If a stolen card is used by someone to buy something and the person using knows or suspects it to have been stolen then anything acquired by the card is itself Criminal Property as defined by S340 POCA 2002. It is a criminal offence to use or possess or transfer Criminal Property, penalty is up to 14 years so serious stuff.

Camelot are still sat on the prize money so in the circumstances they now have good reason to suspect that the money is Criminal Property or at the very least would instantly become so if paid over. They will have no choice; Camelot will have to ask the police for consent to pay it away to anyone, assuming they decide to pay up. The police can either grant or refuse consent and in either scenario they can go after the money in a number of ways under the 2002 Act and the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Easiest £4m plod'll ever get to go for in my assessment.

I suspect that it's also implicit in the terms and conditions of the scratch card T's and C's. Lets have a look, indeed it is, here we are - Rule 6.2 says

6.2 Without limiting the effect of Rule 6.1, Camelot will declare a Scratchcard presented for validation (and/or an entry into a Second Chance Draw, and/or a Prize claim) invalid (and will not, therefore, pay any Prize) if:

(a) Camelot reasonably believes the Scratchcard presented (or to which the entry and/or the Prize claim relates) has been stolen (subject to the rules relating to found Scratchcards set out in Rule 8 below); or

Rule 8.2 (c) says they will pay out if;

You are acting in good faith

which appears to be a quality sadly lacking in these two ne'er-do-wells!

One would-be millionaire appears to have returned to his 'day-job' as the Soopa Soaraway Sun reports;

The Sun told in April how the pair scooped the top prize after buying a ticket during a drinking bender in London.

But lottery bosses have refused to hand over the dosh because they don’t believe the ticket was bought “in good faith”, effectively accusing them of stealing the winning ticket or using a stolen bank card to buy it.

Now footage has emerged of Goodram trying to sell stolen steak in a plastic carrier bag in a pub in his hometown of Bolton, Gtr Manchester.

Goodram walks into the Griffin pub on May 19 to cheers, with one drinker teasing: “He’s gone from £4 million to a 4oz steak. You’re getting f*** all, if you were getting £4 million you wouldn’t be shoplifting lad.”

Others chant “Where’s your millions gone, where’s your millions gone?”

'HE'S GONE FROM £4MILLION TO 4OZ STEAK'

Goodram then reaches into the bag and asks if they want to buy anything before being laughed out of the pub.

Last week dad-of-two Goodram, a former crack cocaine addict with 22 convictions for 45 offences, said he and Watson had been “surviving on the kindness of others until we get what's rightfully ours."

In April The Sun told how the pair beat odds of 4,019,579/1 to win one of three maximum £4million Red scratchcard jackpots.

[aesmith]

If a stolen card is used by someone to buy something and the person using knows or suspects it to have been stolen then anything acquired by the card is itself Criminal Property as defined by S340 POCA 2002. It is a criminal offence to use or possess or transfer Criminal Property, penalty is up to 14 years so serious stuff.

Can those powers be used in the absence of any conviction for the original theft? If I read the new coverage correctly there is no conviction or even police investigation regarding the stolen card.

[hucknallred]

Now footage has emerged of Goodram trying to sell stolen steak in a plastic carrier bag in a pub in his hometown of Bolton, Gtr Manchester.

Always worth a look in the comments section. Found these gems.

Perhaps because they did not get paid out on the big win lottery ticket they were trying to make ends meat.

He wants sue Camelot. The steaks are too high.

[exiledscouser]

If a stolen card is used by someone to buy something and the person using knows or suspects it to have been stolen then anything acquired by the card is itself Criminal Property as defined by S340 POCA 2002. It is a criminal offence to use or possess or transfer Criminal Property, penalty is up to 14 years so serious stuff.

Can those powers be used in the absence of any conviction for the original theft? If I read the new coverage correctly there is no conviction or even police investigation regarding the stolen card.

Yes they can. Part V Powers under POCA don't require anyone to be convicted. They are 'In Rem' applications i.e. against the thing rather than against a person.

For example an Account Freezing Order is one of the new powers that could be used. Whilst proving something is Criminal Property requires (in part) the criminal standard of proof, in Part V it need only be shown that the (money in an account) is derived from or intended for use in crime to a civil standard, being the balance of probabilities.

Interestingly, unlike other parts of POCA a respondent can meet his or her legal costs from cash held under an AFO - as m'learned friends are now discovering! Our Henry might get paid out in this case, even if his clients do not!

[TheHallouminati]

Another stroke of bad luck for Rekha Patel's barrister Henry Hendron.
He been suspended again!
What will the Bolton lottery "winners" do now?
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/07/henr ... ded-again/

[Juisarian]

Surprised to learn Chemsex is not a town in England.

[notorial dissent]

Is it Neelu has bad luck with lawyers, or lawyers have bad luck from associating with her?

[Gregg]

Is it Neelu has bad luck with lawyers, or lawyers have bad luck from associating with her?

I think the problem is "Bugnutz Crazy mixed with Knukin Futz Loopy" just doesn't work.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Is it Neelu has bad luck with lawyers, or lawyers have bad luck from associating with her?

Er, this isn't Neelu we are talking about. Neelu has her own pet struck off lawyer.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

Surprised to learn Chemsex is not a town in England.

Sounds like a potential county to me, Essex, Wessex, Chemsex.

[TheHallouminati]

AnOwlCalledSage wrote Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:01 pm

ArthurWankspittle wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:37 pm
Projection much? Mr O'Bonkers won his court case, as did Tom Crawford, so O'Bonkers says. Where is Tom living these days? Where is O'Bonkers living these days?

A betting man would wager on the CPS ballsing things up, but that doesn't have any consequence for a civil case. Wrecka didn't face any legal ramification for her "repossession" either. She still doesn't own her former property.

Good point about the CPS. Wrecka is appealing her 5-year restraining order to stay away from her former house. But the hearing was postponed in August due to lack of interest (Police witnesses had better things to do).

So it's been re-scheduled for 4th October. If the CPS and/or Police can be arsed to show up.

[He Who Knows]

I just rang Manchester Crown Court for the verdict on Rekha Patel's 4th October appeal against her 5-year restraining order.
It's been adjourned until 9th January 2020 because the judge wasn't satisfied that 1 day was enough for this hearing. So it's been time estimated at a 2-day hearing, Minshull St Crown Court, 9-10 Jan.

[AndyPandy]

I just rang Manchester Crown Court for the verdict on Rekha Patel's 4th October appeal against her 5-year restraining order.
It's been adjourned until 9th January 2020 because the judge wasn't satisfied that 1 day was enough for this hearing. So it's been time estimated at a 2-day hearing, Minshull St Crown Court, 9-10 Jan.

By the time this actually gets to court the 5 years will probably be up anyway.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Why would you appeal an order prohibiting doing something that would be utterly pointless anyway?

How would she answer the question "why do you wish to appeal this order?"

Who is paying for this?

[Comrade Sharik]

Why would you appeal an order prohibiting doing something that would be utterly pointless anyway?

Depends on the terms of the order. If it prohibits her from going within a certain distance of the property, she might be arguing that it prevents her from visiting friends or carrying out other legitimate business.

Having said that, the smart money is on her thinking that overturning it will prove that I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!