Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Fish And Fouled

DEGENERATE gambler Jung Hwan Choihad had a very bad night at Crown, blowing a six-figure sum after doctoring an ATM receipt to persuade the casino he had a lot more than $12.87 in his bank account. Judge Wendy Wilmoth sent him away for two years, but imposed no punishment on his defence lawyer, who is clearly guilty of simile abuse:


Mr Steward told Judge Wendy Wilmoth that Crown did not deserve to lose its money, but to his client it was ''like a monolithic piranha dangling carrots'' of seduction, love and luxuries that were ''incapable of resisting''.
Got to watch those veggie-wielding  piranhas, especially the really big ones.

6 comments:

  1. Simeon Whey (Revd.)October 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Denis Denuto is on the case!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad to read his sentence is fully suspended but I'm still not sure that isn't overly harsh.

    His crime was to doctor (i.e. photoshop) an ATM receipt which was then used to convince Crown he had more dosh in bank than he really did, a lot more. So basically he said "I'm good for it" when he wasn't.

    Crown then let him gamble on credit. The agreement to cover losses by what sat in his bank account seems to only have been a gentlemen's style arrangement, he could have refused and Crown would have to sue for it.

    Obtaining financial gain by exploiting Crown's greed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Similarly, Dave, if he’d done the same to a bank, say, to obtain a house which he’d hope to sell profitably and repay the loan before anyone noticed that he’d committed fraud in order to obtain a financial advantage, that would be all right with you? After all, a promise to repay a bank’s loan is only a gentleman’s agreement isn’t it?
    Similarly, if he’d just been a little more straightforward and taken along a shotgun instead of fake documentation, and asked Crown’s employees to provide a short-term loan in unmarked bills, that would be obtaining gain by exploiting their greed for security, and hardly deserving a custodial sentence, right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Deadman your first example requires elaborating, so I can't really comment on how similar that is. But you do beg the question in referring to "fraud" taking place. If a man commits a fraud has he committed a fraud? Yeah, I suppose he did.

    Shotguns? Now you're being silly.

    Crown gave the man unsecured credit so he could gamble - doesn't take a genius to realize that's asking for trouble. Ask David Schwarz's bookies about that if you need to.

    BTW banks don't call the fraud squad because a mortgagee has defaulted, but that's obvious right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dave, I thank you for your reply.
    According to the Criminal Code (in Tasmania, at least) cheating a bank and cheating a creditor of any sort are both crimes; so, yes, a bank can call the police if a lender obtained a loan after falsifying an account of his assets.
    I shall repeat my point: you seem to suggest that wrongfully obtaining funds from bad, greedy people or corporations is somehow less criminal than other sorts of stealing and the crime should not be punished harshly. However, I can’t find within the Criminal Code any suggestion that stealing or fraudulently obtaining money from obviously greedy people or corporations excuses the offence, nor can I find a graded scale ranging from, say, the really wicked embezzling of virtuous and generous widows through to the excusable swindling of grasping gamblers.
    Pehaps, then you could help me. Though you disparage my suggestion that the unlucky fraudster could have more honestly just asked for money whilst lazily shouldering a shotgun instead of feigning to be wealthier than he was, I should be grateful if you could tell me which criminal acts never warrant harsh penalties. I am irked by so-called hate-crimes, for instance, and ever advocate that murderers ensure that all their homicides be conducted lovingly with tender endearments; likewise, a list would be helpful, I’m sure, to all hopeful burglars, scammers, confidence men, vagabonds, rapscallions and all other sorts of malefactors.
    Would robbing a miser, who wasn’t spending his money anyway, be all right with you? Is stealing from really profitable businesses acceptable? Should all fraudsters establish a prophylactic practice of ostentatious support of worthy charities so that, if nabbed, they may employ the Robin Hood defence?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Deadman
    You're arguing against the idea that "mens rea" should be interpreted as "meaning harm to people who feel hurt".

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete