Bluff and bluster fails.

Not at all.

It's called good and proper business operation.

If I've sourced correctly, any issue passes down the line. If I haven't, it stops at me

Very very simple
So you’d be happy to face criminal prosecution because of how you sourced parts. You’d happily hold your hand up to a crime you had not committed.
 
So you’d be happy to face criminal prosecution because of how you sourced parts. You’d happily hold your hand up to a crime you had not committed.
I source parts correctly

I run a proper responsible business.

I don't lose any sleep over something that can't happen. I have a paper trail of every item. Any and every part is traced

I don't cut corners and pretend I'm fitting something that isn't as described. Which is what you are trying to compare with . If I say it's a sterile part, then it will be so

I'm not sure you fully understand the responsibility of supplying parts in the motor trade.
 
Certain facts have been omitted which may prejudice the criminal case. Like who done it.
The case was just about the contract but the documents disclosed may go further and assist the criminal investigation, maybe it will turn into a deferred prosecution agreement like tessco.
 
I source parts correctly

I run a proper responsible business.

I don't lose any sleep over something that can't happen. I have a paper trail of every item. Any and every part is traced

I don't cut corners and pretend I'm fitting something that isn't as described. Which is what you are trying to compare with . If I say it's a sterile part, then it will be so

I'm not sure you fully understand the responsibility of supplying parts in the motor trade.
A person who unknowingly sources something that is fraudulently described in good faith does not commit fraud if he sells it on relying on that description. It’s that simple.
 
And?

What's your point ?
That there is nothing in the judgement that links Mone or Barrowman to fraud. The judgement was a relatively simple claim for breach of contract.

You agreed to supply x, you supplied y. There is an argument that the customer knew they could not supply y.
 
So what was the point of post 275.
It was a reply to your comment in 253.

Barrowman and Mone cannot be held criminally responsible for someone else's Fraud, if they were not involved in the deception. Hence:
Happy to take the money but not the responsibility, do you mean ?
is your lack of understanding, which I have been trying to help you with for the last couple of pages.


Been checking some facts since ?
What facts are you referring to? You clearly haven't read/understood what the judgement is about.
 
The case was just about the contract but the documents disclosed may go further and assist the criminal investigation, maybe it will turn into a deferred prosecution agreement like tessco.
from memory, wasn't someone else arrested for the suspected fraud?
 
from memory, wasn't someone else arrested for the suspected fraud?
Looks like arrest on basis of conspiracy to commit fraud. What do you do in those circumstances, with a presumption of innocence to protect your rights? No comment or sing like a canary? Tough and stressful position to be in, almost like being stretched from both ends. Lets hope its judged on its facts and doesn't become a political prosecution.

 
Back
Top