manxman8180 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How many more times does it have to be said? That's not a matter for the courts, but for the Department concerned. The court has declared she did not obtain the money fraudulently, in fact, they even went as far to say that she was duly 'entitled' to the monies. However, if there have been breaches to the conditions of the 'grant' (i.e. not for tourist use etc) the Dept may wish to claim the money back (or at least try to). Likewise, if there have been planning breaches, they could be forced to make significant alterations or even knock the building down. But the task of dealing with these issues, was not given to the courts. They could only look at the charges as laid by the prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 From Manx Radio: Julie Corkill, the wife of former Chief Minister Richard Corkill, has today been fined a total of £10,000 after being convicted of four charges in connection with tourism grants. Last week, she was found guilty of three charges of false accounting and one of obtaining money by deception. She was cleared of a further count of deception and another charge of false accounting. The prosecution has asked today for Corkill to pay for the entire costs of the trial and that matter will be provisionally determined on November 24th. I can not understand why Moyles is dragging this out. Last week he needed another week to consider the sentance after announcing the verdicts. I could understand why he would need the time if it the verdicts had been given by a jury as until they announced he would not have known the verdicts. But the verdict was in his hands so surely he could have passed judgement & sentencing in one go. Equally with regard to costs. They were applied for last week why does he need another two weeks to think about it. Surely he could have given a ruling the same time as passing sentence. It looks as though he is rather enjoying the limelight or is he waiting for the publics reaction each time before moving forward. Obvioulsy I am sure that is not the case and nor would I even think of alledging this for a moment as it might get me in trouble, but to the simpleton in the street like myself it is not giving the best impression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained fraudulently? What money she obtained fraudulently? She was found NOT guilty on these charges. The guilty charges related to false accounting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannin Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained fraudulently? You should show a great deal of care with statements of that nature, she has NOT been found guilty of fraud, it was 3 of false accounting and one of obtaining money be deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 It's a pity where Manx Radio breaks the story up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 It looks as though he is rather enjoying the limelight ... Michael Moyle enjoying the limelight? Never. He's too busy having his photo taken by IOM Newspapers every week. Every week. Every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How many more times does it have to be said? That's not a matter for the courts, but for the Department concerned. The court has declared she did not obtain the money fraudulently, in fact, they even went as far to say that she was duly 'entitled' to the monies. However, if there have been breaches to the conditions of the 'grant' (i.e. not for tourist use etc) the Dept may wish to claim the money back (or at least try to). Likewise, if there have been planning breaches, they could be forced to make significant alterations or even knock the building down. But the task of dealing with these issues, was not given to the courts. They could only look at the charges as laid by the prosecution. I know, but the court can order it to be repayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Yeah, I've seen it on Judge Judy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained fraudulently? You should show a great deal of care with statements of that nature, she has NOT been found guilty of fraud, it was 3 of false accounting and one of obtaining money be deception. There is no such offence as "Fraud". There are offences of obtaining by deception (which she appears to have been convicted of) Forgery (convicted again?) and False Accounting (which she has been convicted of.) All of those offences have to have a guilty intent on the part of the perpetrator - an intent to dishonestly deceive I think. So she has been found guilty of "Fraud" the generic term for those above mentioned offences of dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 from iomonline http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArticle2.as...ticleID=1863887 (my emphasis in the story) JULIE CORKILL FINED £10,000 JULIE Corkill, wife of former chief minister Richard, has been fined £10,000. High Bailiff Michael Moyle delivered the sentence this afternoon. He said: 'There is an impression they are living the life of Riley and rolling in money. That is not necessarily the case. This case has taken a toll on their income.' Defence advocate Dawn Jones added: 'My client has suffered enough - emotional stress and financially.' Last week Mrs Corkill was found guilty of one charge of obtaining money by deception and three charges of false accounting. She was cleared of another charge of deception and a further false accounting offence. All the charges related to grants paid by government towards development of holiday accommodation at Mr and Mrs Corkill's Onchan home. It was also revealed the prosecution has lodged a compensation application for the repayment of one of two grants - worth £47,122 - paid by the Department of Tourism and Leisure. That has been adjourned until later this month, when costs will also be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 It was also revealed the prosecution has lodged a compensation application for the repayment of one of two grants - worth £47,122 - paid by the Department of Tourism and Leisure. I wonder if this will form a separate hearing and if so, who will hear it? If Moyle can say - I repeat there would be no additional financial advantage to Mr & Mrs Corkill by splitting the applications in the way they did" - i.e. there's no additional financial advantage in claiming two grants of up to £50,000, rather than just in grant claim of up to £50,000, then I wonder if he is the best person to hear the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained fraudulently? You should show a great deal of care with statements of that nature, she has NOT been found guilty of fraud, it was 3 of false accounting and one of obtaining money be deception. Julie Corkill has been fined 10,000 pounds after being convicted of fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I'm just glad the Human Rights Act came in when it did to protect the poor Corkills. Anybody else wondered why there was no immediate appeal lodged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Julie Corkill has been fined 10,000 pounds after being convicted of fraud. Heh... from the Energy FM that brought you cutting legal insight, a lesson in the use of the apostrophe: "No threats made to Corkill's say Police" I wouldn't trust Energy's news if it said the sun was due to rise tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained fraudulently? You should show a great deal of care with statements of that nature, she has NOT been found guilty of fraud, it was 3 of false accounting and one of obtaining money be deception. Julie Corkill has been fined 10,000 pounds after being convicted of fraud. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&l...on&ct=title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.