Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Forged signature on a legal document
909 views
Skip to first unread message
pcb1962
Jun 18, 2013, 4:20:09 PM6/18/13
to
I am curious about an interesting situation that a friend finds
themselves in and would appreciate your views. My friend is person B.
During the course of legal proceedings between person A and person B it
comes to light that at some time in the past (not in the course of the
current proceedings) A has forged B's signature on a legal document
drawn up by A's solicitor.
A has also provided false witnesses to the forged signature.
B's signature on this document (were it valid) would be of significant
financial advantage to A in the current proceedings.
That B's signature has been forged by A is proven beyond doubt to the
satisfaction of both solicitors, and as a result A's solicitor refuses
to act for them any further.
My questions are these:
- Is the forging of B's signature and the obtaining of false witness
signatures by A a criminal act?
- Since B's valid signature on the document would have given A a
significant financial advantage is this also fraud?
- If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
which solicitor?
- If the answer to the above is no, is there a mechanism for B to
trigger a criminal prosecution of A, for example by reporting the fraud
to the police themselves? Are the police obliged to take any action if
they do?
Thanks for your opinions on this.
themselves in and would appreciate your views. My friend is person B.
During the course of legal proceedings between person A and person B it
comes to light that at some time in the past (not in the course of the
current proceedings) A has forged B's signature on a legal document
drawn up by A's solicitor.
A has also provided false witnesses to the forged signature.
B's signature on this document (were it valid) would be of significant
financial advantage to A in the current proceedings.
That B's signature has been forged by A is proven beyond doubt to the
satisfaction of both solicitors, and as a result A's solicitor refuses
to act for them any further.
My questions are these:
- Is the forging of B's signature and the obtaining of false witness
signatures by A a criminal act?
- Since B's valid signature on the document would have given A a
significant financial advantage is this also fraud?
- If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
which solicitor?
- If the answer to the above is no, is there a mechanism for B to
trigger a criminal prosecution of A, for example by reporting the fraud
to the police themselves? Are the police obliged to take any action if
they do?
Thanks for your opinions on this.
Message has been deleted
Peter Crosland
Jun 18, 2013, 5:20:01 PM6/18/13
to
Yes.
The solicitor is an officer of the Court and has an obligation to report
fraud.
Trying to get plod to take action on fraud is an uphill struggle.
--
Peter Crosland
Zapp Brannigan
Jun 18, 2013, 6:15:02 PM6/18/13
to
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4KKdnX4P5_5kUF3M...@brightview.co.uk...
> The solicitor is an officer of the Court and has an obligation to report
> fraud.
Chris R
Jun 18, 2013, 6:50:03 PM6/18/13
to
>
>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
> news:4KKdnX4P5_5kUF3M...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 18/06/2013 21:20, pcb1962 wrote:
> > - If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
> > have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
> > which solicitor?
> >
> > - If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
> > have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
> > which solicitor?
> >
> The solicitor is an officer of the Court and has an obligation to report
> fraud.
>
No, this is not correct. Solicitors may have an obligation to make
> fraud.
>
anti-money laundering reports but no-one is likely to know whether this has
been done and the reports are rarely acted upon. Other than that, the
perpetrator's own solicitor has an absolute obligation of confidentiality to
his client subject only to ensuring that the solicitor is not used as an
instrument to commit crime. The victim's solicitor acts only in he interest
of his own client and on his instructions.
Proving something to the criminal standard required for prosecution can be
much harder than proving it for the purposes of civil litigation.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
R. Mark Clayton
Jun 19, 2013, 9:30:02 AM6/19/13
to
"August West" <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote in message
news:87ppvj2...@news2.kororaa.com...
>
> The entity calling itself pcb1962 wrote:
>>
>> My questions are these:
>>
>> - Is the forging of B's signature and the obtaining of false witness
>> signatures by A a criminal act?
>
> In Scotland, yes, it would be the common law offence of "utering false
> The entity calling itself pcb1962 wrote:
>>
>> My questions are these:
>>
>> - Is the forging of B's signature and the obtaining of false witness
>> signatures by A a criminal act?
>
> writings". In England I believe it's covered by the Forgery Acts.
The false witness signature may be perjury.
>
>> - Since B's valid signature on the document would have given A a
>> significant financial advantage is this also fraud?
>
>
> --
> I'll get up and fly away
Peter Crosland
Jul 5, 2013, 5:20:01 AM7/5/13
to
On 18/06/2013 23:50, Chris R wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>> news:4KKdnX4P5_5kUF3M...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 18/06/2013 21:20, pcb1962 wrote:
>
>>> - If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
>>> have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
>>> which solicitor?
>>>
>> The solicitor is an officer of the Court and has an obligation to report
>> fraud.
>>
> No, this is not correct. Solicitors may have an obligation to make
> anti-money laundering reports but no-one is likely to know whether this has
> been done and the reports are rarely acted upon. Other than that, the
> perpetrator's own solicitor has an absolute obligation of confidentiality to
> his client subject only to ensuring that the solicitor is not used as an
> instrument to commit crime. The victim's solicitor acts only in he interest
> of his own client and on his instructions.
Solicitors have a specific duty to report money laundering that
>>
>>
>> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
>> news:4KKdnX4P5_5kUF3M...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 18/06/2013 21:20, pcb1962 wrote:
>
>>> - If either or both of the above is true, should one of the solicitors
>>> have turned A over to the police/CPS for possible prosecution? If so,
>>> which solicitor?
>>>
>> The solicitor is an officer of the Court and has an obligation to report
>> fraud.
>>
> No, this is not correct. Solicitors may have an obligation to make
> anti-money laundering reports but no-one is likely to know whether this has
> been done and the reports are rarely acted upon. Other than that, the
> perpetrator's own solicitor has an absolute obligation of confidentiality to
> his client subject only to ensuring that the solicitor is not used as an
> instrument to commit crime. The victim's solicitor acts only in he interest
> of his own client and on his instructions.
overrides client confidentiality under the 1993 Money Laundering
regulations (as amended). What evidence have you that such reports are
not often acted upon?
--
Peter Crosland
Chris R
Jul 5, 2013, 6:05:02 PM7/5/13
to
>
>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
the number of reports they get, most of which are trivial, and there are
nowhere near enough resources to do anything about most reports. Certainly
have been calls to cut back on the vast bureaucracy and the enormous costs
to business of money-laundering compliance when it actually achieves very
little. None of the reports I have seen made have ever resulted in action so
far as I am aware.
It's hard enough to get the police to investigate fraud when you are the
victim. You're not going to get flashing blue lights when you report that Mr
Jones made an unusually large transfer between his bank accounts.
Vir Campestris
Jul 6, 2013, 5:00:02 AM7/6/13
to
On 05/07/2013 23:05, Chris R wrote:
> It's hard enough to get the police to investigate fraud when you are the
> victim. You're not going to get flashing blue lights when you report that Mr
> Jones made an unusually large transfer between his bank accounts.
While I understand that the local police have better things to do than
> It's hard enough to get the police to investigate fraud when you are the
> victim. You're not going to get flashing blue lights when you report that Mr
> Jones made an unusually large transfer between his bank accounts.
look into minor allegations you might be astonished at how much red tape
Mr Jones will have to go to. I've just changed jobs, and we're moving
house to match. The solicitor we're using has needed photo ID (passport,
driving licence) and another form of ID (we used council tax bill) just
to prove we are who we say we are. I've had to take three passports in
to work (I'm not an EU citizen) just to prove I can work here. The P45
from the previous employer wasn't enough...
Someone in central government thinks some kinds of financial fraud are
_really_ important.
Andy
Chris R
Jul 6, 2013, 9:05:02 AM7/6/13
to
>
>
> "Vir Campestris" wrote in message news:kr8m8s$f7t$1...@news.albasani.net...
the benefit of having the system to detect or deter crime. It's a bit like
requiring everyone by law to erect barbed wire fences around their houses.
It probably has some effect in reducing crime, but the question is whether
it is disproportionate.
In the legal field, it acts a barrier to entry for competition, because it
is very difficult to comply with the rules in providing a purely online
service. Not meeting the client is deemed a risk factor, so you have to do
more to get ID evidence, usually involving sending the client to another
professional with a high street office to get their passport certified. A
week or so later you can start delivering the client's urgent legal needs.
Vir Campestris
Jul 7, 2013, 2:40:02 PM7/7/13
to
On 06/07/2013 14:05, Chris R wrote:
> In the legal field, it acts a barrier to entry for competition, because it
> is very difficult to comply with the rules in providing a purely online
> service. Not meeting the client is deemed a risk factor, so you have to do
> more to get ID evidence, usually involving sending the client to another
> professional with a high street office to get their passport certified. A
> week or so later you can start delivering the client's urgent legal needs.
Strange as it may seem, I have met my new employer :) and I've been
> In the legal field, it acts a barrier to entry for competition, because it
> is very difficult to comply with the rules in providing a purely online
> service. Not meeting the client is deemed a risk factor, so you have to do
> more to get ID evidence, usually involving sending the client to another
> professional with a high street office to get their passport certified. A
> week or so later you can start delivering the client's urgent legal needs.
taking documents to the conveyancer's office myself (marked "by hand")
which should give them a clue that if meeting me might help...
But try opening a bank account. You must take ID in to the bank. And
they are seeing you face-to-face, so I don't think the online side of it
is relevant. I blame Tony.
Andy
0 new messages