Dumb criminal stories

[Barrister]

The Jeep was brought to a stop. Immediately, the respondent emerged from the driver's seat of the Jeep and approached the police car declaring: "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so fucked." As will be seen from our disposition of this appeal, that was a prophetic statement.

From Alberta Court of Appeal - 2012 May 4 - R. v. Pelech, 2012 ABCA 134 (CanLII)

Now see, that's what I'm talking about.  There's nothing that prohibits the criminal justice system from being fun, entertaining and allowing oneself to be be creative, full of life and verve.

The Court of Appeal has the advantage that they can never be cross-examined about what they wrote.

Your average beat cop, however, does not.

I'd stick with "Just the facts, ma'am".

[viper37]

Lawyers typically steal in one of two ways - a dumb way, and a not-so-dumb way.

The dumb way is to take money out of client's trust accounts, invest it in high-risk/high reward ways, with the intention of putting the money back later (and pocketing the difference). Pretty well inevitably, these guys get caught.

The not-so-dumb way is to use the confidential info at their disposal to indulge in a bit of insider trading (usually through intermediaries). These guys also get caught, but not as often.

#3: passing personal expenses as corporate expense by disguising the accounting entries.  This happens in small firms, when there are no public stock tradings. 

[CountDeMoney]

The Court of Appeal has the advantage that they can never be cross-examined about what they wrote.

Your average beat cop, however, does not.

I'd stick with "Just the facts, ma'am".

Stick in the mud.  You read what I wrote into the record, bitch.

[Neil]

The Court of Appeal has the advantage that they can never be cross-examined about what they wrote.

Your average beat cop, however, does not.

I'd stick with "Just the facts, ma'am".

Stick in the mud.  You read what I wrote into the record, bitch.

Only on a typewriter though.  Cops that use word processors are fucking n00bs.

[Barrister]

The Court of Appeal has the advantage that they can never be cross-examined about what they wrote.

Your average beat cop, however, does not.

I'd stick with "Just the facts, ma'am".

Stick in the mud.  You read what I wrote into the record, bitch.

If I have to edit on the fly in court it isn't a good thing.

[CountDeMoney]

If I have to edit on the fly in court it isn't a good thing.

Down here I don't think you're allowed. 

[Malthus]

Lawyers typically steal in one of two ways - a dumb way, and a not-so-dumb way.

The dumb way is to take money out of client's trust accounts, invest it in high-risk/high reward ways, with the intention of putting the money back later (and pocketing the difference). Pretty well inevitably, these guys get caught.

The not-so-dumb way is to use the confidential info at their disposal to indulge in a bit of insider trading (usually through intermediaries). These guys also get caught, but not as often.

#3: passing personal expenses as corporate expense by disguising the accounting entries.  This happens in small firms, when there are no public stock tradings.

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

[CountDeMoney]

Only on a typewriter though.  Cops that use word processors are fucking n00bs.

I was the last generation to use typewriters (if your handwriting didn't suck, you could use ballpoint pen: medium point, black teh bestest) when we processed arrests directly at the districts;  once we when to a Central Booking model, it was a wall of CPUs.  Fuck, depending on how easy it was, I'd sometimes have my statement of charges done in the car at the scene and ready to turn in to the turnkey when I got to the station, so I could stop, drop and turn around.  Unlike others who would wait until they got to the station so they can bullshit for half the shift.  Yay, more work for me on the street.

I didn't have to deal with them long before I left, but man, those booking computers, what an absolute and complete disaster.  For a lot of the Dazzling Urbanite officers that grew up in the city, this was their first real exposure to computers, what with their high schools having none.  Talk about a logjam.  Bad enough you had to drive to Central Booking from whichever district you were working in, processing a prisoner would stretch from less than an hour to however the fuck long you had idiots in front of you;  you could be stranded there for hours.  That's why I always kept a paperback with me, preserve my sanity.

Of course, these are the same people that had atrocious departmental records wrecking cars left and right, since becoming DaPoPo was the first time they ever got a driver's license.  And you give them lights and sirens to boot.

I so don't miss that bullshit.

[Barrister]

Only on a typewriter though.  Cops that use word processors are fucking n00bs.

I was the last generation to use typewriters (if your handwriting didn't suck, you could use ballpoint pen: medium point, black teh bestest) when we processed arrests directly at the districts;  once we when to a Central Booking model, it was a wall of CPUs.  Fuck, depending on how easy it was, I'd sometimes have my statement of charges done in the car at the scene and ready to turn in to the turnkey when I got to the station, so I could stop, drop and turn around.  Unlike others who would wait until they got to the station so they can bullshit for half the shift.  Yay, more work for me on the street.

I didn't have to deal with them long before I left, but man, those booking computers, what an absolute and complete disaster.  For a lot of the Dazzling Urbanite officers that grew up in the city, this was their first real exposure to computers, what with their high schools having none.  Talk about a logjam.  Bad enough you had to drive to Central Booking from whichever district you were working in, processing a prisoner would stretch from less than an hour to however the fuck long you had idiots in front of you;  you could be stranded there for hours.  That's why I always kept a paperback with me, preserve my sanity.

Of course, these are the same people that had atrocious departmental records wrecking cars left and right, since becoming DaPoPo was the first time they ever got a driver's license.  And you give them lights and sirens to boot.

I so don't miss that bullshit.

Things are, of course, a lot different now.  All records stored on a central computer.  A computer in most, if not every, PC.  A smart constable can have everything typed up by the time they get to the station.

That being said that also means much, much more paper is generated - mostly useless.  And even though everything for the police is computerized, you just know that everything has to be physically printed out, handed over to us, where we then scan it in again.

Sometimes up north (where they do have everything computerized as well) you would occasionally see it done old-school - nothing but handwritten notes, handwritten witness statements, and a short, typed Prosecutor's Information Sheet.  In it's favour it does make for a very short and concise file.

and now I'm just rambling...

Police have even deliberately taken some steps back in time.  For a while witness statements were all being audio-recorded - sure does make it fast on the scene - just pull out your cheapo digital recorded.  But guess what - it's a PITA to get copies made for us, and to give to defence, and suddenly judges want a transript to boot.  So now, unless it's a homicide it seems, everything is back to handwritten witness statements.

[viper37]

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

I was talking about an accountant defrauding his company, not a company defrauding its clients.  That only happens on government contract with the complicity of the engineers and the bureaucrats in charge of the project

You often hear stories about an accountant who defrauded a company either by directly stealing money from the account or passing personal expenses as companies expenses.  There are SMBs owners who barely check their books.  Some seem to have a weird and total trust in their accountant, giving them the "keys" for everything.

[Barrister]

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

I was talking about an accountant defrauding his company, not a company defrauding its clients.  That only happens on government contract with the complicity of the engineers and the bureaucrats in charge of the project

You often hear stories about an accountant who defrauded a company either by directly stealing money from the account or passing personal expenses as companies expenses.  There are SMBs owners who barely check their books.

The big sophisticated frauds are handled by specialized prosecutors, but I do see some of the more ordinary employee frauds.  Adn typically they could have been discovered and prevented by even just a tiny bit of oversight.  Instead a small business hires someone to, say, do the books and then places complete and utter trust in that person.

[Malthus]

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

I was talking about an accountant defrauding his company, not a company defrauding its clients.  That only happens on government contract with the complicity of the engineers and the bureaucrats in charge of the project

You often hear stories about an accountant who defrauded a company either by directly stealing money from the account or passing personal expenses as companies expenses.  There are SMBs owners who barely check their books.  Some seem to have a weird and total trust in their accountant, giving them the "keys" for everything.

Ah, I was specifically thinking about lawyers and their clients.

I have some good "war stories" about defrauding book-keepers, but unfortunately cannot give details - one in particular is a cautionary tale about lawyers trusting their own client's version of events ...

[Barrister]

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

I was talking about an accountant defrauding his company, not a company defrauding its clients.  That only happens on government contract with the complicity of the engineers and the bureaucrats in charge of the project

You often hear stories about an accountant who defrauded a company either by directly stealing money from the account or passing personal expenses as companies expenses.  There are SMBs owners who barely check their books.  Some seem to have a weird and total trust in their accountant, giving them the "keys" for everything.

Ah, I was specifically thinking about lawyers and their clients.

I have some good "war stories" about defrauding book-keepers, but unfortunately cannot give details - one in particular is a cautionary tale about lawyers trusting their own client's version of events ...

I guess this could count as a "dumb criminal story".

Woman in another jurisdiction is being prosecuted for Fraud Over $5000.  She tells her lawyer she wants to go to her sister's wedding in the Caribbean - but she had to surrender her passport to the Courthouse.  The Crown  says "give me some proof", so client gives to lawyer to give to Crown an itinerary.  The Crown says "give me proof its for a wedding, not just a holiday" so client gives to lawyer to give to Crown a letter from the sister, and a copy of a wedding invitation.  The Crown is still suspicious so asks police to investigate.  They look on Facebook and find out that the sister just GOT married, and to a completely different person than the letter and invitation said.  Copy of the marriage confirms the Facebook.

So lawyer didn't do anything wrong, but is now going to be forced to testify against her former client - something no defence lawyer ever wants to do - on a charge of obstructing justice.

And you know what?  I give her better than 50/50 odds that if she said "I want to go on a holiday" that a judge would have let her.

[Malthus]

I guess this could count as a "dumb criminal story".

Woman in another jurisdiction is being prosecuted for Fraud Over $5000.  She tells her lawyer she wants to go to her sister's wedding in the Caribbean - but she had to surrender her passport to the Courthouse.  The Crown  says "give me some proof", so client gives to lawyer to give to Crown an itinerary.  The Crown says "give me proof its for a wedding, not just a holiday" so client gives to lawyer to give to Crown a letter from the sister, and a copy of a wedding invitation.  The Crown is still suspicious so asks police to investigate.  They look on Facebook and find out that the sister just GOT married, and to a completely different person than the letter and invitation said.  Copy of the marriage confirms the Facebook.

So lawyer didn't do anything wrong, but is now going to be forced to testify against her former client - something no defence lawyer ever wants to do - on a charge of obstructing justice.

And you know what?  I give her better than 50/50 odds that if she said "I want to go on a holiday" that a judge would have let her.

Ouch. 

[HVC]

You'd think padding out your expenses would be noticed. Clients these days are very fussy about that sort of thing ...

I was talking about an accountant defrauding his company, not a company defrauding its clients.  That only happens on government contract with the complicity of the engineers and the bureaucrats in charge of the project

You often hear stories about an accountant who defrauded a company either by directly stealing money from the account or passing personal expenses as companies expenses.  There are SMBs owners who barely check their books.  Some seem to have a weird and total trust in their accountant, giving them the "keys" for everything.