By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
If you can prove it, yes. Although I'm not sure if fraud is the correct term.
Yes there is proof, the guy that was meant to have writ the bogus bill went to Court and said that he didn't write it, and still the fraudster won the case, the defendant has to pay out around £200,000
First port of call is the police.
Yes there is proof, the guy that was meant to have writ the bogus bill went to Court and said that he didn't write it, and still the fraudster won the case, the defendant has to pay out around £200,000
There has to be much more to this case than being told here. A court knowing a bill is bogus still finds for the person confirmng not to have written it seems a little odd here
My mistake the Defendant noticed the Bogus bills while they was sorting the financial part out, the Defendant in the end asked his solicitor to disengage himself from the case and to release his files, apparently the solicitor has had a nervous breakdown.
It's the way in which you use English, and respond to the comments of others. It reads, to me, quite automated - although it is clearly not.
How did you say you know the parties in the case? Or were you just an observer?