5 ms·

That's easy, he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying it back. It's one thing to go a couple of thousand overdr

That's easy, he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying it back. It's one thing to go a couple of thousand overdrawn, quite another to spend $2 million when you have no source of income.

pktgen 10y ago
That's my thinking as well. He would have known that there wasn't a chance in hell he could ever pay that back, nor could he reasonably have believed this situation might change in the future. I would expect this, combined with the amount, extravagance, and opportunistic nature of this whole thing, to show intent to defraud. (But I don't know much about Australia's legal system.)
abiox 10y ago
> he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying i don't think that would stand in any court. the former doesn't imply the latter by necessity.
- raesene6 10y ago
  Whilst IANAL, it would seem logical that a court would look at whether the defendant could reasonably have expected to be able to pay back a loan. If I have a say $50k/year job and borrow say $200k I could reasonably have expected to pay it back, if I then lose my job I could say I had intended to do so but circumstances changed. if I have $0/year as a job and borrow $2 million, you're not seriously suggesting that any reasonable person would buy "oh I totally was going to pay it back" are you?
  - vpalanc1 10y ago
    What if I play it on blackjack? It may be incredibly poor judgement on my part, by what if I totally intended to win & pay it back, with interest? My point is that if I didn't actually do anything to deceive you into giving me money (like, I didn't claim that I have a millionaire father who's going to give you the money in case I lose at blackjack) - then it's not really deception on my part; it's just error and/or poor judgement on your part for handing me the money.
Someone 10y ago
"Have no money to pay it back" applies to many companies (including many banks) that borrowed money and to many house owners, too. Would you conclude they have no intention of paying it back, too? Many companies also spend money they lent on frivolous stuff (end of year parties, football tables, etc) that doesn't obviously contribute to the bottom line, so buying some booze and spending some money on strippers, in itself, isn't fraud. Back to this case: I can see how this would be "obtaining financial advantage by deception and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime", just as taking money from someone's open purse would be.
- pktgen 10y ago
  > "Have no money to pay it back" applies to many companies (including many banks) that borrowed money and to many house owners, too. Would you conclude they have no intention of paying it back, too? The question isn't whether the loan was paid back, it's whether there was an intent to pay it back at the time the loan was taken out. Many of those homeowners foolishly believed their house would appreciate at 20% per year indefinitely (and many lenders were telling people this to convince them to take out loans).
  - scotty79 10y ago
    Maybe he foolishly believed that his life will be worth enough to pay back what he borrowed on some reasonable payment plan.
- raesene6 10y ago
  well in the UK when you want to take out a loan, the bank is legally obliged to look at your ability to repay and not loan you the money if you don't appear to have the ability to repay. Home owners have collatoral, business have business plans, those are assessed by banks for ability to repay. If this guy had actually said to the bank "hey I want to borrow $2 million, I have no income and no collatoral" do you think they would have accepted the loan?
  - scotty79 10y ago

pktgen 10y ago

That's my thinking as well. He would have known that there wasn't a chance in hell he could ever pay that back, nor could he reasonably have believed this situation might change in the future. I would expect this, combined with the amount, extravagance, and opportunistic nature of this whole thing, to show intent to defraud. (But I don't know much about Australia's legal system.)

abiox 10y ago

> he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying i don't think that would stand in any court. the former doesn't imply the latter by necessity.

raesene6 10y ago
Whilst IANAL, it would seem logical that a court would look at whether the defendant could reasonably have expected to be able to pay back a loan. If I have a say $50k/year job and borrow say $200k I could reasonably have expected to pay it back, if I then lose my job I could say I had intended to do so but circumstances changed. if I have $0/year as a job and borrow $2 million, you're not seriously suggesting that any reasonable person would buy "oh I totally was going to pay it back" are you?
- vpalanc1 10y ago
  What if I play it on blackjack? It may be incredibly poor judgement on my part, by what if I totally intended to win & pay it back, with interest? My point is that if I didn't actually do anything to deceive you into giving me money (like, I didn't claim that I have a millionaire father who's going to give you the money in case I lose at blackjack) - then it's not really deception on my part; it's just error and/or poor judgement on your part for handing me the money.

Someone 10y ago

"Have no money to pay it back" applies to many companies (including many banks) that borrowed money and to many house owners, too. Would you conclude they have no intention of paying it back, too? Many companies also spend money they lent on frivolous stuff (end of year parties, football tables, etc) that doesn't obviously contribute to the bottom line, so buying some booze and spending some money on strippers, in itself, isn't fraud. Back to this case: I can see how this would be "obtaining financial advantage by deception and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime", just as taking money from someone's open purse would be.

pktgen 10y ago
> "Have no money to pay it back" applies to many companies (including many banks) that borrowed money and to many house owners, too. Would you conclude they have no intention of paying it back, too? The question isn't whether the loan was paid back, it's whether there was an intent to pay it back at the time the loan was taken out. Many of those homeowners foolishly believed their house would appreciate at 20% per year indefinitely (and many lenders were telling people this to convince them to take out loans).
- scotty79 10y ago
  Maybe he foolishly believed that his life will be worth enough to pay back what he borrowed on some reasonable payment plan.
raesene6 10y ago
well in the UK when you want to take out a loan, the bank is legally obliged to look at your ability to repay and not loan you the money if you don't appear to have the ability to repay. Home owners have collatoral, business have business plans, those are assessed by banks for ability to repay. If this guy had actually said to the bank "hey I want to borrow $2 million, I have no income and no collatoral" do you think they would have accepted the loan?
- scotty79 10y ago