Why wasn't he caught out by the ticket inspectors? Very rarely do you not see one on that line.
as I said before. I have been using that line for 3 years and hardly a journey goes by where there isn't an on board ticket check, sometimes two in one journey. I can only imagine he hid in a loo all his journey although I wouldn't like to spend an hour or so commute in such circumstances !!
KHA - He was a "regulated person" responsible for huge sums of people's monies and therefore the FCA had to act and were quite right to. He had a duty of care to his clients and the fact that he was guilty of theft over a long and sustained period would suggest that he is untrustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of responsibility.
While I don't condone what the guy did, politically this was a easy hit for the FCA. If this person had been on a 'normal' salary, he probably wouldn't have been struck off, seeing that this wasn't a criminal matter
Nearly 40 years ago a bloke I worked with passed all his exams to become a chartered accountant and was awaiting formal admission to the Institute.
One day he was late for work and the queue at the ticket office was prohibitive. (He didn't have a season ticket because he was not always in the Office). He therefore got the train with a view to paying at the other end. An inspector apprehended him on the train and the upshot was that he was prosecuted and hence banned for life by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Professions of trust demand higher standards of behaviour than the mainstream.
Unlike my old colleague this was not an isolated incident but a systematic, calculated act of fraud.
Fraud and working in finance should not go together I'm afraid.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
For those who think this individual has been treated harshly, consider this.
The work he was doing is highly desirable. It's very highly paid, interesting and safe. There are a very large number of people who would volunteer to replace him if they could. They can't, however, because they are not qualified. Prospective employees would judge them to be "unfit" for the work.
All that has happened here is that the regulator, on the evidence of his behaviour, has decided that he is now also "unfit" and hence in the same position as the vast majority of the population. The regulator has these powers because it seeks to protect customers and the integrity of the financial system and doesn't trust all individual firms to make the right call. I don't blame them.
As an aside, what always surprises me about cases like this is not that there are people around who simply can't be trusted, but that this guy was dumb enough to do something with such obvious downside risk. What he did wasn't strictly "rational". Leaving aside the dishonesty, he showed spectacularly poor judgement.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He directly betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct and, in some ways, is worse than the other bloke on the train if you look at the principles rather than the amounts involved
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct just like the other bloke on the train.
That's what I mean, I completely agree with you about the trust issue, yet I find myself more sympathetic to the letting agent.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct just like the other bloke on the train.
That's what I mean, I completely agree with you about the trust issue, yet I find myself more sympathetic to the letting agent.
On initial reading so was I.
But on thinking about it, if you concern yourself purely with the principles rather than amounts, the letting agent is arguably worse as I edited in between you quoting my original post.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct just like the other bloke on the train.
That's what I mean, I completely agree with you about the trust issue, yet I find myself more sympathetic to the letting agent.
So has this guy been banned from working in the Real Estate industry for the rest of his life ?
It annoys me how people think this man should be punished heavily because he has made a success of his life.
that's crap. If it was a one-off event then I'd have sympathy with the guy and agree the punishment excessive but this was systematic fraud over a number of years. If the guy just worked in a Bank earning 35k pa I'd still think the same.
What beggers belief here is that he has thrown away his career and a decent bloody decent job over dodging around 40k over a number of years. He repaid the 40k plus a fine immediately. He could easily afford his yearly train fare but chose not to pay it. It's not as if he was a guy on the bread line who couldn't afford his fare as at least then you'd see some reason for what he did but instead we are talking about a greedy fecker who thought he wouldn't pay, unlike his fellow commuters, because he felt like it. Deserved all he got and more.
Nearly 40 years ago a bloke I worked with passed all his exams to become a chartered accountant and was awaiting formal admission to the Institute.
One day he was late for work and the queue at the ticket office was prohibitive. (He didn't have a season ticket because he was not always in the Office). He therefore got the train with a view to paying at the other end. An inspector apprehended him on the train and the upshot was that he was prosecuted and hence banned for life by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Professions of trust demand higher standards of behaviour than the mainstream.
Unlike my old colleague this was not an isolated incident but a systematic, calculated act of fraud.
Fraud and working in finance should not go together I'm afraid.
I can't believe it got to that point when surely he would have had a very valid defence (if the above is the full story). I've had to get on a train, without a ticket, for the same reason as the guy above many many times.
Good. These white collar thieves are normally treated with kid gloves. Loads of poor people (more desperate) get banged up for a few hundred quid. Amazed by those sympathetic to the perp.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct just like the other bloke on the train.
That's what I mean, I completely agree with you about the trust issue, yet I find myself more sympathetic to the letting agent.
So has this guy been banned from working in the Real Estate industry for the rest of his life ?
No idea. Do they have an equivalent to the FCA, some sort of governing body for property professionals? If so I imagine he could be
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
Estate Agents are in a position of trust when they are given keys to somebody's property and thus allowed to enter in their absence.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct just like the other bloke on the train.
That's what I mean, I completely agree with you about the trust issue, yet I find myself more sympathetic to the letting agent.
So has this guy been banned from working in the Real Estate industry for the rest of his life ?
Nearly 40 years ago a bloke I worked with passed all his exams to become a chartered accountant and was awaiting formal admission to the Institute.
One day he was late for work and the queue at the ticket office was prohibitive. (He didn't have a season ticket because he was not always in the Office). He therefore got the train with a view to paying at the other end. An inspector apprehended him on the train and the upshot was that he was prosecuted and hence banned for life by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Professions of trust demand higher standards of behaviour than the mainstream.
Unlike my old colleague this was not an isolated incident but a systematic, calculated act of fraud.
Fraud and working in finance should not go together I'm afraid.
I can't believe it got to that point when surely he would have had a very valid defence (if the above is the full story). I've had to get on a train, without a ticket, for the same reason as the guy above many many times.
The above is the full story and the fact is that attitudes and morality were very different to now 40 years ago particularly in the smoky, clubbable, "I say old chap" rooms of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and its ilk.
We were all horrified by the punishment at the time and felt it was excessive.
But then you look at all the financial skulduggery that has gone on subsequently because of a slackening of standards and wonder who in fact was right?
I can now understand why he was treated as he was even though, on a personal level, I sympathised and in some ways still do because knowing the bloke I am aware it genuinely was an isolated incident for the reasons given.
The fact that the fares were dodged over a number of years and that the perpetrator could well afford to have paid indicates to me that along with a crooked streak, he has a degree of mental instability, perhaps narcissism, sociopathy or whatever. It takes a warped personality to decide to deliberately avoid paying ones dues when the amount concerned is comparatively negligible. The man was earning a reported salary in the region of £1 million per annum. Anyway two good reasons after he was discovered not to allow him anywhere near o p m .. other peoples' money.
One more point. Most workers in finance, payroll, banking, the law, money handling, in fact any role where utmost honesty is a paramount qualification for employment, any of these would face some kind of censure if not dismissal on a finding of dishonesty against them, be their salary huge or small, their role senior or junior. Not necessarily a criminal conviction either, just the proven fact that the person concerned was not to be trusted in their day to day dealings around money.
A smart arse who thought he was entitled to develop a "scheme" or "strategy" in the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others.
So perfect skillset for a fund manager then?
Rank decision, completely disproportionate to the crime and unprecedented compared to past miscreants. Populist agenda from the FCA, easy win for them but let's see if that level of punishment is maintained.
Smacks of an "emperor's clothes" approach from FCA. The law doesn't regard fare dodging as equivalent to Theft no matter the value so to suddenly say it's the same as shop-lifting is not on. You can't justify a life-ban just because someone who steals a pair of trainers can potentially by jailed.
This fella could probably cost the tax payer millions appealing this and he would probably win at some stage. Hopefully he just walks away.
I don't have any sympathy for him but two wrongs do not make a right and banning him for life from any FCA regulated activity is definitely wrong IMO.
some odd people on here. Wonder how you'd feel if one day some unscrupulous financial adviser swindled you out of your money. and then you found out he had previous. and to boot the FCA had let him continue working in finance.
@kings hill addick - it's not a precedent though - far from it.
It's just an example that has caught the attention of the media because of its more interesting aspects - it makes a good story, so it gets published. It's just one of a continuing, albeit relatively small number that go through every year and have done since the legislation made it feasible.
The few ne'er do wells need to be set against the multitude of people who have passed the FCA's "fit and proper test". (I don't know how many "approved persons" there are - hundreds of thousands I should think - but there's around 12,000 new applications every year plus, for example, the 100-150,000 passported in from the old consumer credit regime. Each applicant will have read during the application process what the FCA expects of them and what will happen if they fail in those expectations.)
Comments
Mr Fleming summed it up perfectly.
One day he was late for work and the queue at the ticket office was prohibitive. (He didn't have a season ticket because he was not always in the Office). He therefore got the train with a view to paying at the other end. An inspector apprehended him on the train and the upshot was that he was prosecuted and hence banned for life by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
Professions of trust demand higher standards of behaviour than the mainstream.
Unlike my old colleague this was not an isolated incident but a systematic, calculated act of fraud.
Fraud and working in finance should not go together I'm afraid.
The reason I bring it up is that I actually thought the level of press attention and furore that this story generated was actually unfair on the individual involved. Yes he stole and it was wrong, yes he should be dismissed from his job, but no I didn't think the media should act as judge, jury and executioner and this guy should have his crime brought to national attention.
Obviously I get that the facts are completely separate, and one was a one off mistake (well he got caught once), whereas the other was a continued crime committed over a number of years. I just find it interesting that subjectively, I on the one hand think one individual has been treated unfairly re: the attention his theft of a chocolate bar received. Whereas Mr Fund Manager, I'm quite happy for them to throw the book at him.......
Also, I started a thread a while back about the role the media has played in Ched Evans, Dave Whelan & Malkay Mackay etc. I actually said that I thought it was not right that every time Ched Evans was to approach a club about playing for them, the press and others would potentially stand in his way. Again, what he did was not right and I would never condone it, but according to the law, he served his time (sort of), and as football is the only thing he knows what to do (and do to a decent level if he has played as a professional), then why should he be prevented from playing football again.
All are completely different examples and nothing is black and white, I just thought it quite interesting to reference how in each case I have reacted. I would be interested to hear if others are more more right/wrong black/white, or do you differ according to the circumstance
The work he was doing is highly desirable. It's very highly paid, interesting and safe. There are a very large number of people who would volunteer to replace him if they could. They can't, however, because they are not qualified. Prospective employees would judge them to be "unfit" for the work.
All that has happened here is that the regulator, on the evidence of his behaviour, has decided that he is now also "unfit" and hence in the same position as the vast majority of the population. The regulator has these powers because it seeks to protect customers and the integrity of the financial system and doesn't trust all individual firms to make the right call. I don't blame them.
As an aside, what always surprises me about cases like this is not that there are people around who simply can't be trusted, but that this guy was dumb enough to do something with such obvious downside risk. What he did wasn't strictly "rational". Leaving aside the dishonesty, he showed spectacularly poor judgement.
Yes it was only a bar of chocolate but the fact was he tampered with, and in fact stole, the personal possessions of a client.
He directly betrayed trust between client and professional which is gross misconduct and, in some ways, is worse than the other bloke on the train if you look at the principles rather than the amounts involved
Geezer's a wrong'un. F**k him.
Also regarding the chocolate, just say sorry and buy the bloke two bars
But on thinking about it, if you concern yourself purely with the principles rather than amounts, the letting agent is arguably worse as I edited in between you quoting my original post.
If you are in a position of trust higher standards of behaviour than the norm are expected when it comes to matters of honesty.
That's why he has been punished.
What beggers belief here is that he has thrown away his career and a
decentbloody decent job over dodging around 40k over a number of years. He repaid the 40k plus a fine immediately. He could easily afford his yearly train fare but chose not to pay it. It's not as if he was a guy on the bread line who couldn't afford his fare as at least then you'd see some reason for what he did but instead we are talking about a greedy fecker who thought he wouldn't pay, unlike his fellow commuters, because he felt like it. Deserved all he got and more.I've had to get on a train, without a ticket, for the same reason as the guy above many many times.
Loads of poor people (more desperate) get banged up for a few hundred quid.
Amazed by those sympathetic to the perp.
Once dropped a sweet wrapper on the street. Got banged up for 20 years. Unbelievable.
We were all horrified by the punishment at the time and felt it was excessive.
But then you look at all the financial skulduggery that has gone on subsequently because of a slackening of standards and wonder who in fact was right?
I can now understand why he was treated as he was even though, on a personal level, I sympathised and in some ways still do because knowing the bloke I am aware it genuinely was an isolated incident for the reasons given.
Anyway two good reasons after he was discovered not to allow him anywhere near o p m .. other peoples' money.
One more point. Most workers in finance, payroll, banking, the law, money handling, in fact any role where utmost honesty is a paramount qualification for employment, any of these would face some kind of censure if not dismissal on a finding of dishonesty against them, be their salary huge or small, their role senior or junior. Not necessarily a criminal conviction either, just the proven fact that the person concerned was not to be trusted in their day to day dealings around money.
If you are going to be reckless with yours and other peoples lives, imagine how reckless they would be with money.
Rank decision, completely disproportionate to the crime and unprecedented compared to past miscreants. Populist agenda from the FCA, easy win for them but let's see if that level of punishment is maintained.
Smacks of an "emperor's clothes" approach from FCA. The law doesn't regard fare dodging as equivalent to Theft no matter the value so to suddenly say it's the same as shop-lifting is not on. You can't justify a life-ban just because someone who steals a pair of trainers can potentially by jailed.
This fella could probably cost the tax payer millions appealing this and he would probably win at some stage. Hopefully he just walks away.
I don't have any sympathy for him but two wrongs do not make a right
and banning him for life from any FCA regulated activity is definitely wrong IMO.
It's just an example that has caught the attention of the media because of its more interesting aspects - it makes a good story, so it gets published. It's just one of a continuing, albeit relatively small number that go through every year and have done since the legislation made it feasible.
The few ne'er do wells need to be set against the multitude of people who have passed the FCA's "fit and proper test". (I don't know how many "approved persons" there are - hundreds of thousands I should think - but there's around 12,000 new applications every year plus, for example, the 100-150,000 passported in from the old consumer credit regime. Each applicant will have read during the application process what the FCA expects of them and what will happen if they fail in those expectations.)
There have been a number of other bans of individuals for all sorts of reasons. Have a browse at this list if you're interested.
fca.org.uk/your-fca/list?ttypes=Final+Notice&
(I like the ones that are addressed to HM Prison!)