Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think he meant public investigation as in. "An investigation where the public is legally allowed to find out there is an investigation going on." I doubt he's meaning a big hoo-hah about a minor toy company.

On a side note, I wonder where Wayland got the stock for their recent hallowean sale? Sadly I was unaware of it, or I would have leapt on the seeds of war items being sold at 60+% off. That looks like far too big a discount to be a trade supply. From a shop? From suppliers of MS?

 azreal13 wrote:
There will be no 'public enquiry' as what he has apparently done is so common in British business it's silly.

Actually, it does sound like like Maelstrom's actions may constitute fraudulent conveyance.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
There will be no 'public enquiry' as what he has apparently done is so common in British business it's silly.

Actually, it does sound like like Maelstrom's actions may constitute fraudulent conveyance.

Definitely.

This is what I was on about in the other discussion, the mother fether that runs Maelstrom should be sent to jail.

There is no way that the bloke didn't know what he was doing, he took my money within an hour of me making an order, and then after ten days of silence, told me I wasn't getting my gear, and then, utterly ignored several emails, and all phone calls.

Basically, its fething outrageous, and If I could be bothered, I would drive down there, drag the snake out of his hole, and boot him all the way to Elgin.

Hence my disagreement with Steve Jackson, who insists that current law is fine and dandy, even though it is utterly unenforceable.

Nobody will ever convince me that the head honcho at MG didn't knowing and willingly take money off people knowing full well he wasn't going to be able to ship them their stuff. Ergo, the man is a walking toilet. How is that any different from knocking on an old ladies door dressed as the gas-man, asking to read her meter, and then ransacking her house while she puts the kettle on?

 mattyrm wrote:
Basically, its fething outrageous, and If I could be bothered, I would drive down there, drag the snake out of his hole, and boot him all the way to Elgin.

And get arrested for, by the sounds of it, a minimum of assault? Please, go right ahead...

 mattyrm wrote:
Hence my disagreement with Steve Jackson, who insists that current law is fine and dandy, even though it is utterly unenforceable.

Source, please?

 mattyrm wrote:
Nobody will ever convince me that the head honcho at MG didn't knowing and willingly take money off people knowing full well he wasn't going to be able to ship them their stuff. Ergo, the man is a walking toilet. How is that any different from knocking on an old ladies door dressed as the gas-man, asking to read her meter, and then ransacking her house while she puts the kettle on?

Well, for a start, he hasn't come onto your property, so there goes the sense of violation of home angle...

The_Real_Chris wrote:
On a side note, I wonder where Wayland got the stock for their recent hallowean sale? Sadly I was unaware of it, or I would have leapt on the seeds of war items being sold at 60+% off. That looks like far too big a discount to be a trade supply. From a shop? From suppliers of MS?

From the looks of it, Wayland's halloween sale was very specifically done. I would take a guess that it was a combination of making specific orders with the intention of doing them 'for the halloween sale' combined with a load of old things they couldn't get rid of.

Yeah, from the Wayland site it sounded like they hit up suppliers for stuff they had lying around and wanted to shift.

I agree completely with the sentiment that Maelstrom made their own bed and have to lie in it (although they also did a lot of lying outside of it around it, and all over the place!).

But I also think it's really naive for anybody to take Wayland's explanation at face value. They weren't interested in saving their industry; we don't have any idea whether or not Simple was truly at risk, or how long they could have maintained financial health waiting for Maelstrom to fulfill its debt via the patchy/unreliable repayment installments. Their earlier offer to buy Maelstrom was also not a generous olive branch that would have preserved Maelstrom. All of Wayland's moves were performed with the intention of neutralizing Maelstrom (who are responsible for putting themselves in a terrible position in which they could be neutralized).

At the end of the day, I don't really care or have special loyalty about or to any of these companies. There will always be webstore discounters and suppliers, and the collapse of individual parties will never kill the industry permanently. My one hope at the end of all this is that Mierce Minis survives, because their products ARE a unique and irreplaceable thing, and it sucks whenever a nice line of miniatures goes forever OOP.

 Dysartes wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Hence my disagreement with Steve Jackson, who insists that current law is fine and dandy, even though it is utterly unenforceable.

Source, please?

Read the thread... I wasnt talking about an actual legal precedent, just a conversation, Ravvon and I see things similarly, ie - It is so hard to prosectute people for internet fraud, the legislation might as well not be there.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/487961.page

 Dysartes wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Nobody will ever convince me that the head honcho at MG didn't knowing and willingly take money off people knowing full well he wasn't going to be able to ship them their stuff. Ergo, the man is a walking toilet. How is that any different from knocking on an old ladies door dressed as the gas-man, asking to read her meter, and then ransacking her house while she puts the kettle on?

Well, for a start, he hasn't come onto your property, so there goes the sense of violation of home angle...

Obviously you are being pedantic, I clearly didn't mean its the exact same sort of crime.. because robbing people over the internet isnt the same as stealing the biscuit tin someone keeps all their money i, but it IS outright theft to take money off people when you know full well you will not be sending them what they paid you for before you even take the orders, would you not agree? If someone makes an ebay account selling tickets for a boxing match, sells 500 pairs, but doesn't actually have any tickets, and doesn't mail any out, would you not expect them to go to prison? Its pretty much the exact same thing. The crux is the same as my lighthearted robbing the pensioners house analogy..

Namely, theft and fraud.

I'm curious as to your feelings on the matter, you are arguing with me why exactly?

Do you see this different from the majority? Are you defending MGs actions? If so, why?

Do you not think that the two main gripes I have raised....

1. MG knowingly took cash from people when they had no intention of honouring the order.

2. MG purposely ignored all attempts at communication.

Are entirely sound?

The company have behaved reprehensibly, it is rude as feth, it is theft, and it is fraud.

Please enlighten me as to why I should not be annoyed at MGs actions, if you have any information that may quell my rage, I'm all ears.

On the basis of what we know, or can reasonably assume, in the context of transfer of assets, MG have done nothing wrong illegal as long as they have been exchanged for fair market value.

In the context of taking money for goods they had no intention of supplying? Perhaps more of a case, but unless management have been naive in the extreme and left emails lying around that incriminate them, I challenge you to prove it.

It's not about what you know, it's what you can prove.

Altruizine wrote:
I agree completely with the sentiment that Maelstrom made their own bed and have to lie in it (although they also did a lot of lying outside of it around it, and all over the place!).

But I also think it's really naive for anybody to take Wayland's explanation at face value. They weren't interested in saving their industry; we don't have any idea whether or not Simple was truly at risk, or how long they could have maintained financial health waiting for Maelstrom to fulfill its debt via the patchy/unreliable repayment installments. Their earlier offer to buy Maelstrom was also not a generous olive branch that would have preserved Maelstrom. All of Wayland's moves were performed with the intention of neutralizing Maelstrom (who are responsible for putting themselves in a terrible position in which they could be neutralized).

At the end of the day, I don't really care or have special loyalty about or to any of these companies. There will always be webstore discounters and suppliers, and the collapse of individual parties will never kill the industry permanently. My one hope at the end of all this is that Mierce Minis survives, because their products ARE a unique and irreplaceable thing, and it sucks whenever a nice line of miniatures goes forever OOP.

Sorry but you assume some things (Waylands were not interested in perserving the industry they are in) and say you dont know other things (how much 100k loss would affect Simple). Their offer to buy Maelstrom would have been better for the industry at large and customers, they offered to take on all debt and comminetments. Yes part of Waylands intention probably was to remove a compeitior, is there anything wrong with that in business?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
On the basis of what we know, or can reasonably assume, in the context of transfer of assets, MG have done nothing wrong illegal as long as they have been exchanged for fair market value.

In the context of taking money for goods they had no intention of supplying? Perhaps more of a case, but unless management have been naive in the extreme and left emails lying around that incriminate them, I challenge you to prove it.

It's not about what you know, it's what you can prove.

In regards to selling what they do not have, very easy to prove, say they sold x amount of Dark vengeance which they didnt have the stock for in September, and these orders were not fulfilled and not refunded, nor was any stock ordered then they sold more Dark vegeance in October with the same, that is 100% fraud. I have used DV as a example but I have no idea if this was the case with it or not,

 azreal13 wrote:
On the basis of what we know, or can reasonably assume, in the context of transfer of assets, MG have done nothing wrong illegal as long as they have been exchanged for fair market value.

In the context of taking money for goods they had no intention of supplying? Perhaps more of a case, but unless management have been naive in the extreme and left emails lying around that incriminate them, I challenge you to prove it.

It's not about what you know, it's what you can prove.

Oh yeah, hence the reason I said "Nobody will ever convince me that..."

I know for a fact they wont get in the gak, which is the point I was making in the other thread. Legislation sucks, and I think that the top man at MG is an absolute scumbag, sure I cant prove it, but I'm entitled to my opinion.

Honestly.. you would have to be an absolute fool to think that the guy in charge of the purse strings at MG didn't know exactly what was happening, but as you say, proving it is another matter, and thats why I was dripping about the whole legislation thing in the morality thread.

 Dysartes wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Basically, its fething outrageous, and If I could be bothered, I would drive down there, drag the snake out of his hole, and boot him all the way to Elgin.

And get arrested for, by the sounds of it, a minimum of assault? Please, go right ahead...

 mattyrm wrote:
Hence my disagreement with Steve Jackson, who insists that current law is fine and dandy, even though it is utterly unenforceable.

Source, please?

 mattyrm wrote:
Nobody will ever convince me that the head honcho at MG didn't knowing and willingly take money off people knowing full well he wasn't going to be able to ship them their stuff. Ergo, the man is a walking toilet. How is that any different from knocking on an old ladies door dressed as the gas-man, asking to read her meter, and then ransacking her house while she puts the kettle on?

Well, for a start, he hasn't come onto your property, so there goes the sense of violation of home angle...

I think he means me... Matty had a little bit of a strop because I said, after 15 years of working in credit and dealing with hundreds of bankrupcys and liquidations, I think the law works fine just has problems with at times with improper trading not being properly enforced.

Matty on the otherhand thinks we should go back to the world of workhouses and debtors prison, dispite not understanding the basics of company law and the concept of limited liability (which I have pointed him to and he has clearly refused to read - and he wonders why I won't be drawn in to an argument with him...).

MarkyMark wrote:

In regards to selling what they do not have, very easy to prove, say they sold x amount of Dark vengeance which they didn't have the stock for in September, and these orders were not fulfilled and not refunded, nor was any stock ordered then they sold more Dark vegeance in October with the same, that is 100% fraud. I have used DV as a example but I have no idea if this was the case with it or not,

Exactly. Fraud and fething theft in my book. Taking peoples money when you know full well beforehand you aren't going to even attempt to send them their gak, is full on thievery, hence my ire.

Ok if we're assuming that they were actively behaving fraudulently, as opposed to being incompetent.

It would be so easy to create purchase orders, claim orders were placed on the phone etc..

Much of business accounting is done by the business itself, you would be frightened how easy fraud can be if you put your mind to it.

Steve steveson wrote:

Matty on the otherhand thinks we should go back to the world of workhouses and debtors prison, despite not understanding the basics of company law and the concept of limited liability (which I have pointed him to and he has clearly refused to read - and he wonders why I won't be drawn in to an argument with him...).

Mate I obviously don't, as I said, I was clearly taking the piss. I don't think we should put people on racks or make them break rocks.. the point was simply that I don't think the current system is working as intended, but you took my sarcastic "chain them all to sex offenders" thing far too seriously.

I fully understand the concept of limited liability.. for one, it encourages entrepreneurship, clearly I get that, I'm a Tory.

As I said, learn to take the more militant stuff I say with a pinch of salt. I mean... feth me, didn't the content of the sentence make you aware of the fact I was taking the mick? I even mentioned Jimmy Saville!

 mattyrm wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:

In regards to selling what they do not have, very easy to prove, say they sold x amount of Dark vengeance which they didn't have the stock for in September, and these orders were not fulfilled and not refunded, nor was any stock ordered then they sold more Dark vegeance in October with the same, that is 100% fraud. I have used DV as a example but I have no idea if this was the case with it or not,

Exactly. Fraud and fething theft in my book. Taking peoples money when you know full well beforehand you aren't going to even attempt to send them their gak, is full on thievery, hence my ire.

Pre orders are a bad example. You simply claim you didn't'receive enough.

When challenged you say ordered X amount, but didn't receive them all.

Your supplier says you didn't.

You say you did, did they not get the order?

You are now in a your word vs theirs situation. Nobody can prove you didn't place an order.

feth... Deleated by accident!

Steve steveson wrote:
Its like the parent who still says there 16 year old 18stone child is "just puppy fat".

Hey, that's what my Mum always said about me!

MarkyMark wrote:

Altruizine wrote:
I agree completely with the sentiment that Maelstrom made their own bed and have to lie in it (although they also did a lot of lying outside of it around it, and all over the place!).

But I also think it's really naive for anybody to take Wayland's explanation at face value. They weren't interested in saving their industry; we don't have any idea whether or not Simple was truly at risk, or how long they could have maintained financial health waiting for Maelstrom to fulfill its debt via the patchy/unreliable repayment installments. Their earlier offer to buy Maelstrom was also not a generous olive branch that would have preserved Maelstrom. All of Wayland's moves were performed with the intention of neutralizing Maelstrom (who are responsible for putting themselves in a terrible position in which they could be neutralized).

At the end of the day, I don't really care or have special loyalty about or to any of these companies. There will always be webstore discounters and suppliers, and the collapse of individual parties will never kill the industry permanently. My one hope at the end of all this is that Mierce Minis survives, because their products ARE a unique and irreplaceable thing, and it sucks whenever a nice line of miniatures goes forever OOP.

Sorry but you assume some things (Waylands were not interested in perserving the industry they are in) and say you dont know other things (how much 100k loss would affect Simple). Their offer to buy Maelstrom would have been better for the industry at large and customers, they offered to take on all debt and comminetments. Yes part of Waylands intention probably was to remove a compeitior, is there anything wrong with that in business?

Wayland are obviously interesting in preserving the industry they are in. However, we have no actual evidence that the industry would have really been in trouble in Maelstrom had hypothetically folded completely without any prodding, and not paid a penny back to any creditor. We aren't really privy to the proper scale of things and an understanding of how bad things could have gotten if Wayland had never intervened (just like we'll never know if Maelstrom could have pulled itself out of it's self-incurred debt if given more time).

There's nothing at all wrong with Wayland seeking to cripple Maelstrom. It's sort of badass, actually, and you better believe Maelstrom would have done the same thing if their positions had been reversed. My only problem is with Wayland's airy fairy idealistic explanation of their actions, which doesn't really ring true.

 mattyrm wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:

Matty on the otherhand thinks we should go back to the world of workhouses and debtors prison, despite not understanding the basics of company law and the concept of limited liability (which I have pointed him to and he has clearly refused to read - and he wonders why I won't be drawn in to an argument with him...).

Mate I obviously don't, as I said, I was clearly taking the piss. I don't think we should put people on racks or make them break rocks.. the point was simply that I don't think the current system is working as intended, but you took my sarcastic "chain them all to sex offenders" thing far too seriously.

I fully understand the concept of limited liability.. for one, it encourages entrepreneurship, clearly I get that, I'm a Tory.

As I said, learn to take the more militant stuff I say with a pinch of salt. I mean... feth me, didn't the content of the sentence make you aware of the fact I was taking the mick? I even mentioned Jimmy Saville!

Fair enough. I didn't take your comments about Jimmy Saville seriously, but the violence and hard work you were suggesting, I assumed that you were meaning that to some extent and toned it down to assume that when you said there should be more threat to debtors to mean the workhouse. And I assumed you did not understand limited liability because you are suggesting direct repercussions against the director of a failed business. Did I not go far enough?

Out of interest then, what do you suggest is done to improve the law?

 azreal13 wrote:
On the basis of what we know, or can reasonably assume, in the context of transfer of assets, MG have done nothing wrong illegal as long as they have been exchanged for fair market value.

In the context of taking money for goods they had no intention of supplying? Perhaps more of a case, but unless management have been naive in the extreme and left emails lying around that incriminate them, I challenge you to prove it.

It's not about what you know, it's what you can prove.

We can prove that they passed confidential customer information from Maelstrom to EotS, so right there you have a couple of information privacy type laws being breached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

And we don't know absolutely anything on how the assets were transferred from Maelstrom to EotS / Mierce, and I certainly wouldn't assume that they haven' done anything illegal during that transfer. Someone that is capable of the type of behaviour that Rob Lane has demonstrated can surely fidget some books to have some stock missing from MS just for it to magically appear in EotS...

 azreal13 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:

In regards to selling what they do not have, very easy to prove, say they sold x amount of Dark vengeance which they didn't have the stock for in September, and these orders were not fulfilled and not refunded, nor was any stock ordered then they sold more Dark vegeance in October with the same, that is 100% fraud. I have used DV as a example but I have no idea if this was the case with it or not,

Exactly. Fraud and fething theft in my book. Taking peoples money when you know full well beforehand you aren't going to even attempt to send them their gak, is full on thievery, hence my ire.

Pre orders are a bad example. You simply claim you didn't'receive enough.

When challenged you say ordered X amount, but didn't receive them all.

Your supplier says you didn't.

You say you did, did they not get the order?

You are now in a your word vs theirs situation. Nobody can prove you didn't place an order.

September and October were not pre orders mate, it was released by then (end of August wasnt it?).

Then you have to show your PO (purchase order) and the supplier will have a copy as well. So there are paper trails buddy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Altruizine wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:

Altruizine wrote:
I agree completely with the sentiment that Maelstrom made their own bed and have to lie in it (although they also did a lot of lying outside of it around it, and all over the place!).

But I also think it's really naive for anybody to take Wayland's explanation at face value. They weren't interested in saving their industry; we don't have any idea whether or not Simple was truly at risk, or how long they could have maintained financial health waiting for Maelstrom to fulfill its debt via the patchy/unreliable repayment installments. Their earlier offer to buy Maelstrom was also not a generous olive branch that would have preserved Maelstrom. All of Wayland's moves were performed with the intention of neutralizing Maelstrom (who are responsible for putting themselves in a terrible position in which they could be neutralized).

At the end of the day, I don't really care or have special loyalty about or to any of these companies. There will always be webstore discounters and suppliers, and the collapse of individual parties will never kill the industry permanently. My one hope at the end of all this is that Mierce Minis survives, because their products ARE a unique and irreplaceable thing, and it sucks whenever a nice line of miniatures goes forever OOP.

Sorry but you assume some things (Waylands were not interested in perserving the industry they are in) and say you dont know other things (how much 100k loss would affect Simple). Their offer to buy Maelstrom would have been better for the industry at large and customers, they offered to take on all debt and comminetments. Yes part of Waylands intention probably was to remove a compeitior, is there anything wrong with that in business?

Wayland are obviously interesting in preserving the industry they are in. However, we have no actual evidence that the industry would have really been in trouble in Maelstrom had hypothetically folded completely without any prodding, and not paid a penny back to any creditor. We aren't really privy to the proper scale of things and an understanding of how bad things could have gotten if Wayland had never intervened (just like we'll never know if Maelstrom could have pulled itself out of it's self-incurred debt if given more time).

There's nothing at all wrong with Wayland seeking to cripple Maelstrom. It's sort of badass, actually, and you better believe Maelstrom would have done the same thing if their positions had been reversed. My only problem is with Wayland's airy fairy idealistic explanation of their actions, which doesn't really ring true.

Conversely you have no evidence to say it would not have affected the industry. I wouldnt never expect a company to publicy release their business plans, every company in the world puts a spin on pretty much everything, its nothing new and is not the first nor the last. Overall the reasons why Wayland purchased the debt is irrelvant at this point

 azreal13 wrote:
Pre orders are a bad example. You simply claim you didn't'receive enough.

When challenged you say ordered X amount, but didn't receive them all.

Your supplier says you didn't.

You say you did, did they not get the order?

You are now in a your word vs theirs situation. Nobody can prove you didn't place an order.

No, it's not a yours versus theirs situation, because you and they both have documentation stating you ordered Y amount.

And if it is a yours versus theirs situation, it's because you don't possess any documentation to suggest they owe you anything.

Steve steveson wrote:


Fair enough. I didn't take your comments about Jimmy Saville seriously, but the violence and hard work you were suggesting, I assumed that you were meaning that to some extent...

Out of interest then, what do you suggest is done to improve the law?

I don't know entirely, smarter men than us are supposed to run the bloody country, its above my pay grade anyway.

There are many aspects of law that don't seem fit for purpose, I don't think we should be satisfied and stop looking for a better way forwards.

Certainly the system seems to vary greatly around the world, I read an article about Scranton going bankrupt in the economist a few months back, and also an article about Iceland's rise from the ashes after their financial crisis, I don't think anyone has the ideal solution, but I definitely think that there should be bigger ramifications for people that behave irresponsibly like desperate gamblers, usually with other peoples bloody money.

I know its different for individuals than it is for corporations in the States (I lived there a while) I'm unsure if our system is similar, but it seems to me that there is no real incentive to pay your bills with an IVA when you can just go bankrupt instead.

PhantomViper wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
On the basis of what we know, or can reasonably assume, in the context of transfer of assets, MG have done nothing wrong illegal as long as they have been exchanged for fair market value.

In the context of taking money for goods they had no intention of supplying? Perhaps more of a case, but unless management have been naive in the extreme and left emails lying around that incriminate them, I challenge you to prove it.

It's not about what you know, it's what you can prove.

We can prove that they passed confidential customer information from Maelstrom to EotS, so right there you have a couple of information privacy type laws being breached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

And we don't know absolutely anything on how the assets were transferred from Maelstrom to EotS / Mierce, and I certainly wouldn't assume that they haven' done anything illegal during that transfer. Someone that is capable of the type of behaviour that Rob Lane has demonstrated can surely fidget some books to have some stock missing from MS just for it to magically appear in EotS...

So Maelstrom contravenes the DPA?

I'm sure they'll receive a hefty fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Pre orders are a bad example. You simply claim you didn't'receive enough.

When challenged you say ordered X amount, but didn't receive them all.

Your supplier says you didn't.

You say you did, did they not get the order?

You are now in a your word vs theirs situation. Nobody can prove you didn't place an order.

No, it's not a yours versus theirs situation, because you and they both have documentation stating you ordered Y amount.

And if it is a yours versus theirs situation, it's because you don't possess any documentation to suggest they owe you anything.

No, the don't have any documentation because you never sent any.

However you can claim you did and they lost it. Nobody can prove otherwise. Unless you're dumb enough to document what you're doing.

The adminstrator/liquidator has the power to set aside any trnasaction in the last 3 years (I think, it's been a while) and recover any goods transfered/sold to the detriment of the company.

One thing that people don't know about insolvency laws, is that the insolvent is/can be presumed guilty until proven innocent. They have no right to silence as a defence, they cannot claim incrimination as a defence and if they fail to answer any questions to the satisfaction of the A/L they can find themselves infront of a judge quicker than you would believe. With one sheet of paper a A/L can seize assets he believes part of the estate. He doesn't have to prove they are part, just that he believes they are. You have to prove they arn't before you get them back.

Lets wait to see what happens next before pillorying someone.

@MattRM, why Elgin

Cheers

Andrew

Forgive me for amateur lawyering here (I am most assuredly not licensed to practice law in the UK), but it seems superfluous to discuss some of these more exotic provisions of the law, when it appears that there is a fairly strong prima facia case to be made for criminal fraud under the Fraud Act of 2006.

Specifically, Section 2;

Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Several people have alleged that MG sold items that it had no capacity to obtain. Assuming, arguendo, that to be true, any such sales would seem under a plain language reading of the statute to constitute a fraud. Selling items which they had the means to obtain, but had no intention to obtain, or might not obtain, would similarly be fraud.

Please note that the offense being performed by a corporation is no insulation: under provision 12, Liability of company officers for offences by company, (2) "If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of" (a) "a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or" (b) "a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity," then "he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

All that said, I am open to the idea that I am missing something here, as this is very different from my experiences with American law, where for a property crime there would typically be a range of value specified. If there is one, I have been unsuccessful in discovering it.

Also, please note that this provision is regarding criminal, rather then civil liability. My presumption is that there would be a procedure for the creditors to be made whole, but I am insufficiently familiar with UK law to discern it. Curious to hear from people more conversant with the relevant statutes on this matter.

All that said, it would seem the single mos pertinent information that this thread should be distributing is not blame, but that anyone with outstanding business with MG should immediately begin the process of seeking a refund.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the don't have any documentation because you never sent any.

However you can claim you did and they lost it. Nobody can prove otherwise. Unless you're dumb enough to document what you're doing.

Then your claim is worthless. It's like trying to fraudulently claim you purchased something on layby - your argument will implode approximately five seconds after you refuse to provide a single iota of evidence that any contract exists.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Also, please note that this provision is regarding criminal, rather then civil liability. My presumption is that there would be a procedure for the creditors to be made whole, but I am insufficiently familiar with UK law to discern it. Curious to hear from people more conversant with the relevant statutes on this matter.

Generally, limited liability only applies in the absence of wrongdoing. If Rob Lane is found to have been committing fraud it is likely that he will be personally liable for any debts - including to his customers - that his company cannot cover.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the don't have any documentation because you never sent any.

However you can claim you did and they lost it. Nobody can prove otherwise. Unless you're dumb enough to document what you're doing.

Then your claim is worthless. It's like trying to fraudulently claim you purchased something on layby - your argument will implode approximately five seconds after you refuse to provide a single iota of evidence that any contract exists.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Also, please note that this provision is regarding criminal, rather then civil liability. My presumption is that there would be a procedure for the creditors to be made whole, but I am insufficiently familiar with UK law to discern it. Curious to hear from people more conversant with the relevant statutes on this matter.

Generally, limited liability only applies in the absence of wrongdoing. If Rob Lane is found to have been committing fraud it is likely that he will be personally liable for any debts - including to his customers - that his company cannot cover.

Burden of proof does not lie with the defendant. Besides, I have My copy of the purchase order. I created one last week when it became apparent I'd need to prove I tried to order the goods.