From: "Adrian Smith" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Responsibility for ID fraud
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:53:16 GMT

"Ronald Raygun"  wrote in message 
news:seK7g.66168$wl.51818@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> By your own definition:-
>>
>> To secure a criminal prosecution 'dishonest intention' would have to be
>> proven. In the type of cases discussed here, intention is virtually
>> impossible to prove without a confession or credible witnesses.
>
> If what you mean by "type of cases discussed here" is failing to return
> the car after borrowing it, the dishonest intent can be inferred from the
> facts.  Beyond "forgetting" to return it, or returning to the wrong place
> "by mistake", there's little chance of mounting a successful defence of
> lack of dishonest intent.
>

It is up the the prosecutor to prove dishonest intent, not the defendant to 
prove otherwise, though of course a good and simple defense would be that he 
forgot. After all, if simply not returning something when it was supposed to 
be returned was assumed to be a crime, most of us would be locked up 
permanently.

> If you're back to the case of the bank calling in a loan you didn't take
> out, then dishonest intent can likewise be inferred once the bank has been
> notified that you did not in fact borrow the money.  The intent is 
> obviously
> there if they make the transaction, the only question is whether the 
> intent
> is dishonest.  Believing they're entitled to it is a good defence against
> the intent being deemed dishonest, but not once they've been formally
> notified that they're not entitled to it due to the fact that you didn't
> actually borrow the money.
>
> So they could lawfully take the money in the mistaken belief that
> it is owed to them *before* they've been advised that they're in the
> wrong, but must return it immediately once so advised, or they will be
> equally as guilty of theft as if they'd taken it after being advised.
>
> If they don't believe you, they'd be well advised to be very sure you're
> lying before helping themselves, and should -just in case you're not- opt
> for the safer approach of suing you - same as they'd have to do if your
> in-credit accounts were with a different bank.
>

Let me see then, I'll write to my bank stating that the loan I have is not 
mine, but that of an impostor and that if they touch my savings I'll tell 
teacher. That'll have them quaking in there boots... not!

Adrian Smith