Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015

lundi 30 mars 2015

Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the Bill, it received Royal Assent on 26 March. The Bill is now an Act of Parliament (law) as of today. This is a positive step towards the prevention of fraud creating the "Offence of supplying specialist printing equipment knowing it will be used for criminal purposes"



In this Act, “specialist printing equipment” means any equipment which is designed or adapted for, or is otherwise capable of being used for, the making of relevant documents (including any material or article that is used in the making of such documents).



A “relevant document” is anything that is or purports to be—



(a)an identity document;



(b)a travel document;



(c)an entry document;



(d)a document used for verifying the holder’s age or national insurance number;



(e)a currency note or protected coin, as defined by section 27(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act; 1981



(f)a debit or credit card;



(g)any other instrument to which section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 applies (money orders, etc).

An Act to make provision for an offence in respect of supplies of specialist printing equipment and related materials; and for connected purposes.



http://ift.tt/1MoROEa


Attached Files







Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015

EBAY SCAM : 2003 VW T4 VOLKSWAGEN CAMPERVAN | FRAUD | 30-Mar-15

PLEASE BE #SCAMAWARE - READ THIS -->

See more - follow to see listing...



If you have found this post it is likely you have been looking at an advert to purchase an item like this. Please check the link for the listing number as although this SPECIFIC LISTING has been reported as a potential scam others may be genuine.



If you have found this post and it has helped prevent you becoming a victim of a scam or has even made you investigate further when researching potential purchases online - please register on the site and let us know.



If in any doubt please READ THIS THREAD and post in the main Scams / Fraud forum.



________________________________________















*





Previous scam attempts (Feb 2015)

















and















*





Posted on eBay by cyber-criminals on 29-Mar-15 at 23:18






Reported to eBay by Buster Jack on 30-Mar-15 at 17:22















Total eBay Vehicle Scams after 30 days of March 2015 : 0790

























Total to date since April 2013 : 18,680











VALUE OF BUSTED SCAMS SINCE APRIL 2013 : c. £93 million / US$138 million





Daily average over 710 days: £132,000 / US$196,000




(as of 30-MAR-15)










*


































See more - follow to see listing...





EBAY SCAM : 2003 VW T4 VOLKSWAGEN CAMPERVAN | FRAUD | 30-Mar-15

Can the bank ‘UNCLEAR’ cleared funds?

Hello again,



I raised an issue last year about my right (or otherwise) to funds from a cheque of £35,000. The issue raised was about clearing timescales. The issue raised some interest (and emotions!) but I want to look at it from a different viewpoint.



In brief, my cheque was deposited, ‘lost’ and then ‘found’ by my bank. Once found, my bank told me verbally that ‘due to the time involved’ the cheque had been placed onto my account as cleared funds and that I was clear to spend them. I did not accept this at face value, so the adviser checked with both his own line manager and also with the bank’s cheque clearance team and rang me back to confirm this was true.



Initially I disbelieved that the funds could be cleared and mine to keep but next day, with Google’s help, I realised it could be true. I therefore tried and withdrew the funds with no problem the day after they were shown on the account.



Later, the cheque bounced (I suffered no loss as the cheque was from my mother). However the bank then removed £9,000 that was already on my account as cleared funds and applied a £25,000 debit to offset their loss. The bank has never given a clear account of why it thinks it had an entitlement to take the funds. It does say that the cheque bounced, which is true, but this of itself does not entitle them to recover funds it had cleared.



My evidence that the funds were cleared is that:



1) The bank told me most vociferously (and after checking) that the cheque was cleared and that I could spend the money





2) I withdrew the money on what, on the bank’s evidence, would only be day 1 of the clearing cycle. In the normal clearing cycle you cannot withdraw money on day 1 of the clearing cycle.





3) This account had no overdraft facility and rarely had a balance above a few hundred pounds during the 35 years that it has been running.







My (admittedly self-interested) view is that, whilst the bank has the power to clear cheques at any point it decides to, once they take a considered decision to clear the funds, they are cleared and that is irrevocable. Once taken, the individual decision to clear takes precedence over any other timescale that might apply under the normal clearing procedure. In my view the bank may have made a misjudgement leading to a commercial loss in clearing the cheque but they cannot 'unclear' or ‘de-clear’ (there doesn’t even seem to be a word to describe this) funds once that decision is made. The rest of us have to live with our misjudgements and the bank has no mercy if we get it wrong. Surely they cannot take money out of my account to pay for their misjudgement. My understanding is that once the funds are cleared the bank takes on the role of guardian of my funds and they cannot simply take the money from my account unless they have a rule that allows them to or my permission.



So my questions are:



1) How is it determined factually whether the funds were cleared or not?





2) Once cleared does the bank have any power to 'unclear’ them and take them from my account?





I found this reference and explanation:



“Case; Dextra Bank and Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Jamaica UKPC 50 (26 November 2001)



The bank made a misprediction of what would happen, a prediction is an exercise of judgment and to act on the basis of prediction is to accept risk of disappointment. If you then complain of having been mistaken you are merely asking to be relieved of a risk knowingly run. The safe course for one who does not want to bear the risk of disappointment is to communicate with the recipient of the benefit in advance of fully committing.



Birks – Introduction to the law of restitution p 147”





Thanking you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have about this,



Best wishes,





Nicola





Can the bank ‘UNCLEAR’ cleared funds?

FCA WARNING: Cooper Brennan

We have published this statement to warn investors against dealing with unauthorised firms.





http://ift.tt/1CpFvj7





FCA WARNING: Cooper Brennan

British Gas warrent of entry vulnerable

Do the magistrates grant warrents to install metre with 2 under 5year children in household?





British Gas warrent of entry vulnerable

Welfare-to-work company employees to be sentenced for fraudulent claims | UK news | T

Sentencing has begun for 10 employees of a recruitment company that aimed to get people back into work who fraudulently claimed nearly £300,000 from taxpayers. The staff members worked for Action 4 Employment (A4e), which was contracted by the government to help people from difficult backgrounds gain the necessary training and skills. They made up... Read more »

Read More -> Welfare-to-work company employees to be sentenced for fraudulent claims | UK news | The Guardian





More...





Welfare-to-work company employees to be sentenced for fraudulent claims | UK news | T

Fonecomp Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 39 (03 February 2015)






Fonecomp Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 39 (03 February 2015)