Fletcher Out for 12 - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Fletcher Out for 12 - Qld Gallops - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Fletcher Out for 12  (Read 78300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6084
« 2017-Nov-15, 06:36 AM Reply #200 »
I'm at a loss to find anything that Fletcher did right.

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4011
« 2017-Nov-15, 07:45 AM Reply #201 »


I stand corrected.

It is no wonder the industry is corrupt if the racing authorities re powerless to prevent it.

Taken as these decisions stand, one would never bet on a horse race again -- until such time as it is accepted tht anyone placing a bet on a horse race is subject to the rules of racing.

I would support that.

I was focussed on the 'bowler' allegations.

The wheels of justice turn in complex ways.

Some of those mentioned in these case studies have subsequently fallen from grace for other reasons --  the suspicion remains that one evading justice in one matter will be brought undone in different circumstances because the eyes of those once offended will be alert to other instances of questionable behaviour.

One standard reference is Eddie Azzopardi v. christopher robin jones (a corrupt policeman)..........another perhaps is about Rene Rivkin.

......... what chance of the racing industry being given the same powers as road and traffic authorities in relation to holding responsible, according to the rules of the road, that those driving are so subject.



Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6084
« 2018-Apr-16, 07:53 AM Reply #202 »

Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4011
« 2018-Apr-16, 02:30 PM Reply #203 »

There seem to be two separable elements to the 'Fletcher' matter

One is the suggestions (not provred?) that he was involved in some form of 'match fixing' and betting to profit from it.

........ the other is the use of 'bowlers' to over-ride the refusal of corporate bookmakers to accept his bets.

Presumably the charges he is now facing relate to the use of 'bowlers' -- not tampering with the balls played.

There will be a lot of interest in the 'bowler' hearing -- many want the corporates to be obliged to accept bets (to a limit) from anyone as licensed bookmakers are.



Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2439
« 2018-Apr-16, 05:21 PM Reply #204 »
Stephen Charles Fletcher, 47, from Darlinghurst, has been charged with 78 counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception.




That's a pretty fancy 'handle' for what he has done . .

And 10 years in the chokey is a pretty fancy punishment


If such a 'serious matter' is heard before a jury, as it will be . . the odds against a 'guilty' verdict would be 1 000 to 1 and drifting


Fancy any corp. taking someone to court over 'sharp practice'  :whistle:

Offline Bubbasmith

  • Group 1
  • User 197
  • Posts: 7366
« 2018-Apr-16, 05:42 PM Reply #205 »
In the days when bookies were bookies a lot of owners and trainers used commission agents to place their bets with bookies. Under the interpretation of today's corporates those owners and trainers were using bowlers and would be little different to the circumstances Fletcher finds himself today.
I am aware that if one reads the fine print when signing up with a corporate there is a clause about operating an account under an alias..that is the clause the charges have been laid against Fletcher to gain a financial advantage by deception.

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2439
« 2018-Apr-16, 07:00 PM Reply #206 »
The following week, again using Mr Immens’s account, Mr Fletcher bet $20,578 on the favourite Travinator at Perth’s Belmont Park. The win returned $4,115.60, court documents show.




In the days when 'bookies were bookies' a bet like that, even if they thought that it was a 'hot-case' would have brought the response: "Do you want it again?"  :knight:


Nowadays they take you to court . .  :sad:

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 14465
« 2018-Apr-16, 07:46 PM Reply #207 »
Fletcher mightn't be as lucky here as he was getting off the charges in Qld...looks an open & shut case...but the severe maximum penalty looks out of place for an offence of this kind......this time the prosecutor is the Crown.

Giddy Up :beer:
« Last Edit: 2018-Apr-16, 07:48 PM by Arsenal »

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2439
« 2018-Apr-16, 08:31 PM Reply #208 »
It certainly looks 'open and shut' but this is a multi-faceted affair

Juries can be 'kittle cattle', and with public perceptions of 'bookmakers (black hat)'; 'punters out witting said bookies (white hat)'; 'police involvement (??) hat'; hugely disproportionate penalty . .

I think he gets off

Offline JayDee

  • Maiden
  • User 2614
  • Posts: 9
« 2018-Apr-16, 08:34 PM Reply #209 »
If he is found guilty and therefore a precedent set there will be no punters left! Who hasn’t had a mate place a bet for yourself? He’ll defend, win and then probably sue.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5051
« 2018-Apr-17, 12:06 AM Reply #210 »
Hmmmm,

As far as I know you cannot legislate by contract clauses...... so either it is fraud under the laws of the land or it is not.

Under contract law however the clause about not using an alias does mean that the bets need not be honoured........ Restitution for the corps likely on that point.... if raised.

But what do I know.

Fours
ps if 'alias' meaning not spelt out in clauses then we are left with the general meaning of the word. No doubt the ? will be raised as to whether an agent or bowler is/are in fact an alias?
« Last Edit: 2018-Apr-17, 01:27 AM by fours »

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7145
« 2018-Apr-17, 09:16 AM Reply #211 »
Below is from a Victorian site - assume it's pretty much the same Australia wide.

https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/obtaining-financial-advantage-by-deception

The elements

There are three elements that constitute the offence of obtain financial advantage by deception. The prosecution must prove each of them ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to prove their case against the accused person. If the prosecution is unable to do this, the accused is not guilty of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. As criminal lawyers part of our role (if the case is being contested) is to investigate cases and identify problems in the prosecution case, to show that one or more of the elements are not proven.

Element 1: The accused obtained financial advantage;

obtain financial advantageThe words ‘financial advantage’ are not defined within the Act. They should be given their plain meaning and should not be narrowly construed.4 Financial advantage is not limited to pecuniary advantage or money. A debt, for example, could be caught by the term ‘financial advantage’ and thus fall within the meaning of section 82. An example of this could be the falsification of documents to obtain a loan.

The prosecution also must show that the accused obtained the relevant financial advantage. The accused does not need to have obtained the financial advantage for themselves – it is enough if they obtained it for someone else.5

Element 2: The accused used deceit to obtain the financial advantage

The second element requires the accused to have obtained the financial advantage by deceit.6 If the financial advantage accrues without any deception, no offence is committed. A deception must be the causal link for obtaining the financial advantage. The deception may be deliberate or reckless, it can include an act or omission, or it may be a representation.

Element 3: The accused obtained the financial advantage dishonestly.

In addition to the requirement of deceit in a case of Obtain financial advantage by deception, the prosecution must prove that the accused acted dishonestly. They must prove that the accused was acting dishonestly when they, by deception, obtained the financial advantage.7

This element focuses on the accused’s state of mind.

The leading case on the meaning of the word ‘dishonesty’ under the Act in Victoria is R v Salvo:
In my opinion “dishonestly”, in this statute, is used in that sense of “with disposition to defraud” which means “with disposition to withhold from a person what is his right” and in the special context thus imports into the offence the element that the actor must obtain “the property” without any belief that he himself has any legal right to deprive the other of it.8

So under the Act a key question to be asked when assessing dishonesty is whether the accused person believed they had a legal right to undertake the relevant action.

In a trial, the questions a judge will ask the jury to consider a9

    Did the accused obtain financial advantage?
    If yes, then he will ask question 2.
    If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain a financial advantage by deception.
    Did the accused obtain financial advantage by deception?
        2.1. Did the accused make a false representation?
        (Consider – Did the accused make the representation alleged by the prosecution. Was that representation false when it was made?)
        If yes, then he will ask 2.2.
        If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain financial advantage by deception.
        2.2 At the time of making the representation, did the accused know that the representation was false, or that it was probably false?
        If yes, then he will ask 2.3.
        If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain financial advantage by deception.
        2.3 Did the accused intend that the false representation would be acted upon?
        If yes, then he will ask 2.4.
        If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain financial advantage by deception.
        2.4 Did the accused obtain the financial advantage as a result of making the false representation?
        If yes, then he will ask 3.
        If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain financial advantage by deception.
    Did the accused obtain the financial advantage dishonestly?
    (Consider – Has the prosecution proved that the accused did not believe that he/she had a legal right to obtain the financial advantage?)
    If yes, then the accused is guilty of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
    If no, then the accused is not guilty of obtain a financial advantage by deception.

Obtain Financial Advantage By Deception – Possible defences

The offence of obtain financial advantage by deception can raise legal issues in relation to the intention of the accused. If a jury considers that it is reasonably possible that the accused did not intend for the complainant to act upon their representation which in turn allowed them to obtain the financial advantage, then the accused will not be guilty of this offence. Without the requisite intent the offence is not made out.

Lack of knowledge is also a defence available to the charge if the accused did not have knowledge that their representation was false (or deceptive) or probably false at the time it was made. In determining this, a jury must be satisfied that the accused themselves knew, or knew of the likelihood that the representation was untrue. The objective reasonable person test is not applied in this instance.

Other defences available include factual dispute, duress, wrongful identification, mental impairment, honest and reasonable mistake or belief or necessity may apply.




I would think the third element would be the most difficult to prosecute.




Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2439
« 2018-Apr-17, 10:30 AM Reply #212 »
Would have to agree . .

A punter having a bet with a bookmaker, before a race is hardly a dishonest action



Might be drawing a long bow, but if Fours is correct in saying that restitution could be ordered for winning bets . . could Fletcher reclaim losing bets placed by his bowlers


My legal qualifications, by the way, were hard won, under the tutelage of some brilliant minds, and my experience covers many years at the bar

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5051
« 2018-Apr-17, 03:25 PM Reply #213 »
arthur,

Have not lost too many cases myself.

Clear point(s) of diffference can be shown between bowlers on a race track and written contract clasues for the corps, which the learned judges just love to come to different conclusions or end points for each situation.

Arthur - all bets would be set aside as invalid   - not just the winning ones.

Fours
ps - on point 3 a one off transaction may see him clear BUT a distinct pattern of behaviour involving lots of 3rd parties who don't bet on a similar scale, or type of betting patterns, more or less has him sunk here.
« Last Edit: 2018-Apr-17, 03:45 PM by fours »

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2439
« 2018-Apr-17, 03:58 PM Reply #214 »
What are you doing here, wasting time with RTON about to go

I have had a small bet EW Hidden Goddess

Offline ratsack

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 327
  • Posts: 10074
« 2018-Apr-18, 08:50 PM Reply #215 »
arthur,

Have not lost too many cases myself.

is there anything this man can't do ?


Offline Peter Mair

  • Group 2
  • User 326
  • Posts: 4011
« 2018-Apr-18, 10:12 PM Reply #216 »


I can't imagine tat Fletcher is 'out' for even 5 minutes

.............anyone can walk into a TAB and place bets .......... and these days TAB odds are no worse or better than scared corporate offers.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5051
« 2018-Apr-18, 11:40 PM Reply #217 »
ratsac,

Not much good at needlework - all yours!

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6084
« 2018-Apr-19, 07:33 AM Reply #218 »
I suspect this interesting development (from Ms Cuneen's PR agency newspaper of choice) is not unrelated to the dawdling Fletcher proceedings.

Have the 3 former Cunneen-Wyllie's changed their surname?



https://myaccount.news.com.au/sites/dailytelegraph/subscribe.html?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&mode=premium&dest=https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/crown-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-sc-set-to-leave-dpp/news-story/b9289fa58367e382167e9df0f06fc0ef&memtype=anonymous

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6084
« 2018-Apr-20, 05:28 AM Reply #219 »
Cute international perspective -

"Fletcher has now been charged with 78 counts of “dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception.” Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in an Aussie prison. Knowing his propensity for using others’ identities, authorities will probably want to make sure it’s really him before sending him away."


https://calvinayre.com/2018/04/17/business/lucky-43000-win-proves-not-lucky-fraud-charges-levied/

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 5051
« 2018-Apr-20, 10:25 AM Reply #220 »
on 'fine minds',

All to often fine minds are used by the unscrupulous to get around the intent of the law.

One example, which may be relevant here,  is the use of 100's if not thousands of trusts to get around the limiting of 1000 shares per individual in the floating of a company with an almost gauranteed 20-40% premium on listng to the issue price. Rene did this on the Woolworths float and probably many more such floats in his time.

No doubt Fletcher's legal team will be arguing there was no deception at all, that the accounts were indeed the accountsof the named persons so there can be no deception accordingly. Just as Rene had 100's or more of individual trusts where the law was intended to limit the quota per individual and trust law was not considered by the authourities or was studiously ignored why they too got on the gravy train this afforded at the expense of the wider ignorant community.

So a decision here will turn on what point of the legal construct emphasis is given to to decide if misleading conduct has occurred. For exmaple  'conduct' can be approched from several angles including 'pattern of begaviour''  as opposed to the written word of signed documents.

The 'pub test' or morals and the final outcome of the 'rule of law' can vary due to the shenanigans of these fine minds. The rich seem to get the benefits of these minds rather than the poor.

I use a different word to 'fine' minds myself.

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 6084
« 2018-Apr-21, 08:45 AM Reply #221 »
The PIC inquiry released phone recordings of Fletcher betting through stooge accounts and agreeing that he was the stooge in question.

That seems to be a key determinant on whether or not fraud occurred.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap