Comment on Will UK taxpayers get their £122m back from PPE Medpro?
Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Just call it what it is fraud and a criminal organisation. Someone in the government or civil service authorised the payment for the goods after delivery. It’s not about returning the money it’s about sending a message, reclaim what you can an jail everyone involved. If this was anyone else for smaller amount of money and not linked to the government it would have happened already.
FishFace@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Well no, it probably wouldn’t, that’s the point. Proving fraud is expensive, and bankruptcy otherwise prevents retrieving full amounts.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 9 hours ago
Well perhaps we give them a choice. Pay the money back or take the remainder of their life in prison for fraud and refusing to give back the proceeds of crime.
FishFace@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I think in this high profile, high stakes case there might be enough reason to pursue a criminal case.
I don’t think it should be possible to just lock people up without proving fraud or criminal negligence to a proper standard, which is what makes it difficult and costly.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
To my understanding they were promptly told the delivery was not fit for purpose and asked the money be paid back. That money was not paid back and now they claim the company doesn’t have the money.
What would you call that if not fraud? They knowingly spent money that should have been returned. Sure we could agree that the fraud isn’t the fact the equipment wasn’t fit for purpose but then not returning the money is either fraud or theft, both of which can have custodial sentences. I’ve seen people arrested for stealing sandwiches.