Comment on Will UK taxpayers get their £122m back from PPE Medpro?
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 day agoWell no, it probably wouldn’t, that’s the point. Proving fraud is expensive, and bankruptcy otherwise prevents retrieving full amounts.
Comment on Will UK taxpayers get their £122m back from PPE Medpro?
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 day agoWell no, it probably wouldn’t, that’s the point. Proving fraud is expensive, and bankruptcy otherwise prevents retrieving full amounts.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Well perhaps we give them a choice. Pay the money back or take the remainder of their life in prison for fraud and refusing to give back the proceeds of crime.
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think in this high profile, high stakes case there might be enough reason to pursue a criminal case.
I don’t think it should be possible to just lock people up without proving fraud or criminal negligence to a proper standard, which is what makes it difficult and costly.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
To my understanding they were promptly told the delivery was not fit for purpose and asked the money be paid back. That money was not paid back and now they claim the company doesn’t have the money.
What would you call that if not fraud? They knowingly spent money that should have been returned. Sure we could agree that the fraud isn’t the fact the equipment wasn’t fit for purpose but then not returning the money is either fraud or theft, both of which can have custodial sentences. I’ve seen people arrested for stealing sandwiches.
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 20 hours ago
That assumes they had no costs in producing or acquiring the not fit for purpose goods. And that they knew the goods were unfit.
A fraud case would be more about proving they knew the goods would not be fit for purpose. Failing to pay back money when if they did not know. Is just breach of contract.
Proving there knowledge before the event. And the cost of providing the goods. Or the companies wealth to payback the costs of operation while obtaining and shipping the goods. Are all extremely complex to do.
FishFace@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Well, I hadn’t heard that, but suppose it’s true:
Legally you have to be able to distinguish what they did from a company whose customer told them that some merchandise was defective, and then the company simply carried on operating as normal while looking into it. I think it would be unusual to hold that money aside unless the company thought that the complaint was likely accurate, and certainly it’s not legally required, because the company will have bills to pay.
So if it’s not unreasonable for a company to carry on spending money while there’s a question over potentially having to repay something, we can’t reasonably take the position that, because this company carried on spending money, that must be fraudulent.