Julie Mugford and the Stolen Cheque Books

[Adam]

no half decent defence barrister would ever say something like that.

They did not say it at trial. They said it behind closed doors. They have to be realistic.

[Alias]

Forging signatures is a pretty serious crime.

[scipio_usmc]

Julie affirms that Jeremy told her that it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible. On reflection, it's perfectly possible that it was she who said it to him. It sounds as if it may have been a maxim she was happy to live by.

When did she claim he told her such?  Are you referring to this because if so your characterization is way off:

[scipio_usmc]

I'm not arguing with you scipio you old fart. What I posted is true. Go check it out. You are the deceiver not I.

In your mind it is true maybe but as you admitted yourself yesterdya you ar eusually wrong...

[grahameb]

In your mind it is true maybe but as you admitted yourself yesterdya you ar eusually wrong...

Too proud to go and look are you. Well I'm not surprised. No balls to admit you're wrong.

[Adam]

Forging signatures is a pretty serious crime.

I know someone at work who did this. Twice.

He was demoted. Twice. But worked his way back up to management level.

[Alias]

I know someone at work who did this. Twice.

He was demoted. Twice. But worked his way back up to management level.

Just goes to show that crafty psychopaths are normally in management.....

[Jane]

That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.

I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.

I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim.  The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.

Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in  which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.

[grahameb]

Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in  which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.

Those my dear April are the exact symptoms of a psychopath or at least a sociopath. Don't you recognise it?

[scipio_usmc]

Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in  which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.

I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.

[JackiePreece]

I need to check this with Ngb because I don't think there is 'a minor cheque book fraud'

I believe anything relating to fraud goes straight to Crown Court and cannot be dealt with at magistrates court

[grahameb]

I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.

You unfortunately are acting rather like a numpty in denial aren't you. You can't even find where I "changed the subject" as you said.

[Jane]

I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.

But you do it anyway. In  fact just moments ago it was you who introduced June into a discussion which had nothing to do with her. If I was the only one who said it, it COULD be that I'm mistaken, but many posters say the same of you. If you're so clever there's no need for it. It seems that how you see yourself and how others see you is vastly different. We are, perhaps, better judges than you, of how we experience you.

[JackiePreece]

What is the punishment for cheque fraud in UK?
1 Answer  •  Law & Ethics

Best Answer (Chosen by Voter)
There are many types of "fraud". Benefit fraud, tax fraud, mortgage fraud, obtaining money by deception etc. Generally, large scale frauds and tax frauds are dealt with more seriously.

Obtaining money transfer by deception generally attracts around an 18 month sentence. The Fraud Act 2006 re-stated the law on fraud, and what constitutes fraud.

A person is guilty of fraud if he uses a false representation, or fails to disclose information, or abuses his position, to dishonestly gain.

If tried in the magistrates court, fraud carries a maximum prison term of 12 months. If heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Owning an item to be used in a fraudulent act (such as a forged cheque book) can result in 5 years imprisonment (Fraud Act 2006 S6 (2)(b))

A court will consider various things in the sentencing. Defendants are usually given credit for an early guilty plea. They are also given credit for anything in mitigation, such as previous character etc. A heavier sentence will result from defrauding HMRC (the tax man) or government agencies, especially over a long period of time, using the money frivolously, or defrauding somebody in a vulberable position (eg banker defrauding customer, carer defrauding elderly) etc. A large scale fraud will yield a higher penalty.

[JackiePreece]

Hardly a minor crime!!!