Julie Mugford and the Stolen Cheque Books

[nugnug]

there allso given a lot of mitagation for telling the police what they want to hear.

[scipio_usmc]

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

for the amount involved the usual sentence is a fine. Particularly when it is a first offense and a one time thing.  The young age also factors into merely being given a fine.  To get any jailtime yo uneed to steal in excess of 5000 pounds and even then there are mitigating factors that could end up resulting in little to no actual jailtime.

[grahameb]

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.

It wasn't only a cheque book fraud Jackie. It was obtaining goods by deceit and handling stolen goods. Remember they didn't return any of the goods they obtained through the cheque book scam. So in effect those businesses lost valuable revenue as well as Muggy said she either gave them to a charity shop (some gift!) or threw them away.
I does of course depend on many things. But I sat in court one day and saw a girl who committed a similar crime as Muggy and cher friend and she went down for about two years. But of course Essex Police needed her to testify against Bamber. She was their STAR witness and so she wasn't charged. Can you really see anyone else get away with such a crime? Of course not.

[nugnug]

well some people are treated less harshly than others but very few people get of scot free.

[Alias]

for the amount involved the usual sentence is a fine. Particularly when it is a first offense and a one time thing.  The young age also factors into merely being given a fine.  To get any jailtime yo uneed to steal in excess of 5000 pounds and even then there are mitigating factors that could end up resulting in little to no actual jailtime.

It wasn´t quite a one time thing. There was the Osea Park robbery, the drug dealing and possible accessory to murder.

[nugnug]

she was looking at few years in jail if the police had on her in an unfaverable light.

[grahameb]

well some people are treated less harshly than others but very few people get of scot free.

Remember nugnug this was no ordinary chequbook fraud. It was obtaining good by deceit as well. Which included theft of clothing which she either gave away to others or threw away. The law does not recognise the excuse of being influenced by others. But very odd that the cops did not prosecut old Muggy isn't it.

[nugnug]

well no its that odd at all when you think of it.

they dont want to descredit there star witness by convicting her of a serious crime.

[Jan]

Not minor

her idea

End of her teaching career as well then.

[nugnug]

oh thats the sure but i think it pretty much ended anyway.

[scipio_usmc]

It wasn´t quite a one time thing. There was the Osea Park robbery, the drug dealing and possible accessory to murder.

A one time fraud.

Only convictions matter as to sentencing.

What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?

What evidence of accessory to murder?

What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?

Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders.  Same with respect to the caravan robbery. 

[Alias]

A one time fraud.

Only convictions matter as to sentencing.

What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?

What evidence of accessory to murder?

What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?

Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders.  Same with respect to the caravan robbery.

But not a one time crime. All criminal activity counts.

[grahameb]

Not minor

her idea

End of her teaching career as well then.

And that is possibly what they threatened her with.

[nugnug]

A one time fraud.

Only convictions matter as to sentencing.

What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?

What evidence of accessory to murder?

What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?

Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders.  Same with respect to the caravan robbery.

they had more than enough from her own mouth to chardge her as an acessery to murder.

[Jan]

there is something else that strikes me as odd.

We have been told recently that apparently Anne Eaton could be a credible witness .

So if Julie in her own words lay on the bed on the night of the murders and KNEW that Jeremy had done the murders , then how come Anne said she was so composed and not upset at all after going to ID the family ?

Apparently at that time she knew Jeremy had done it , she could have been charged herself as she knew of the plans before hand and then she had to see the bodies of the poor children and yet no emotion ? No nerves? No feeling ill with shock ? No qualms about being with Jeremy and supporting him?

Bit strange really.