3 ms·
Yes, it is unclear why the police told him it was civil since fraud is "misrepresentation for a gain", which the fraudulent seller presumably did. Maybe the ar
by lbriner 5y ago
Yes, it is unclear why the police told him it was civil since fraud is "misrepresentation for a gain", which the fraudulent seller presumably did.
Maybe the argument is that without proof that the fraudulent seller made a gain, it is merely a Tort and not Fraud?
- krisoft 5y ago> it is unclear why the police told him it was civil It's just typical first level support. Police didn't see any obvious simple solution and wanted the issue out of their hair so they said the thing which usually gets the issue out of their hair. The person persisted and escalated the issue higher. (for example to the news papers.) And now "The BBC put Mr Hall in touch with Bedfordshire Police's fraud squad, which has begun an investigation."
- pmyteh 5y agoI suspect the average PC called out to an argument between two seemingly innocent parties about ownership is going to want to get as far away from it as possible...
- teawrecks 5y agoThey're referring to the parties at the house when the police were called. By all official accounts the house had been sold and the police couldn't find anyone to arrest.
- kube-system 5y agoBecause there are three parties, and only one of them committed a crime. The one who currently has the house and the one who lost the house have not -- their dispute is civil. The criminal was long gone by the time the police arrived.