Are they real, 178 years to pay back money defrauded from us taxpayers

[#1]

[quote= http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2699197/Benefits-cheat-bogusly-claimed-100-000-benefits-given-178-YEARS-pay-money-taxpayers.html]Benefits cheat who scammed £100,000 in nine years of lies is given 178 YEARS to pay back money to taxpayers
Nicola Daly claimed to be a single mother, but actually lived with partner
Daly, 39, claimed six-figure sum fraudulently over nine years
She has now been jailed for 16 months at Reading Crown Court

[#2]

Here's someone who will NEVER have to pay back the thousands he cheated. Not one half penny for the next millenium. So what's the difference? This one doesn't live on Benefit Street but is a member of the House of Lords. A convincted criminal who only served two weeks of a six month prison sentence. One who was awarded compensation by the police who arrested him whilst investigating his expenses fraud. Proof that there's one rule for us, and no rules for them >
http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Lord-H-51k-debt-Essex-County-Council-written/story-21329337-detail/s...

[#3]

Unfortunately there are many examples of the right thing being done because of the cost of legal proceedings. It could easily cost 2-3x (the £50,000 claimed) in legal costs and there is no such thing as a certain claim in law - if you lose, you're responsible for your own legal costs and those of the other party.

[#4]

And that's what these white collar criminals are banking on - it's too expensive to recover the money they stole. And even if they do have to pay it back, the Courts are remarkably reluctant to make the convicted cough up the the legal fees. However, if you refused to pay your council tax [ the money that ends up in councillors back pockets ], your front door will be kicked in by ballifs/thugs working for a dubious debt collection agency , which then brings legal proceedings against you for their collection fee. As for blue collar criminals who might for example, rob a cash machine, there's no shortage of resources to bring them to justice. One rule for us, no rules for them.

[#5]

Quote from: AndyH

Unfortunately there are many examples of the right thing being done because of the cost of legal proceedings. It could easily cost 2-3x (the £50,000 claimed) in legal costs and there is no such thing as a certain claim in law - if you lose, you're responsible for your own legal costs and those of the other party.

I guess if this happened in America the outcome would be a long jail sentence.

[#6]

Who said crime doesn't pay?

[#7]

ahh but there is a dispute over the alleged debt that the council knows legally it wont be triumphant over

Quote

Legal action over a Lord's £50,000 council credit card spend will not be pursued, it has been confirmed. Lord Hanningfield, jailed for parliamentary expenses fraud in 2011, spent £286,000 on the card while he was leader of Essex County Council. The authority claims nearly £51,000 was potentially inappropriately spent - something the peer denies.

this is more about attempting to shame someone into doing what the expenses review panel believes would be correct even though they don't have any evidence to support the case,  in the balance of probabilities he most likely is guilty as the council claims but they have no proof and prior bad acts (expenses fraud) wont be admissible as evidence, indeed they didn't even bother to investigate the staggering card bill until after his prosecution was publicised and it took them a further 3 years to finalise the report (which cost more than the apparent 51k to produce)
whereas with people who commit verifiable crimes there is irrevocable proof of guilt, the problem then comes down to who pays for prosecuting the crime and funds any recovery aspects, for Lord Hanningfield  it would of been a civil case not a criminal one so the council would foot the bill, but for provable crimes its the justice system that foots the bill ....
so the council is correct in not pursuing things further than to make a public statement in the hopes that the gravy train guzzler might offer to repay his dubious spending, if the bloke had however been scrutinised more closely for his high flyer spending on the council card perhaps this situation wouldn't of arisen in the first place ......

[#8]

Quote from: nanotm

so the council is correct in not pursuing things further than to make a public statement in the hopes that the gravy train guzzler might offer to repay his dubious spending, if the bloke had however been scrutinised more closely for his high flyer spending on the council card perhaps this situation wouldn't of arisen in the first place ......

There's often another reason why [blank] may be eager for cases to avoid the microscope of a civil hearing against [blank]. A defendent is entitled to a defence as they are innocent, and who knows what random evidence may be presented that could embroil everyone else on the gravy train, alegedly?
Give the Lord 178 years to pay back what he owes. Having made a faustian bargain, he'll clearly live that long.

[#9]

they could but any such order would be unenforceable as it would assume guilt of the individual without according them due process, enabling such actions is a slippery slope to a goose-stepping state  stomping all over all sorts of liberties