Fraud When Travelling - Any Advice Appreciated

[Doorbell12]

Hi all,

Yesterday I was stopped for travelling into London with an incorrect ticket. The ticket I was using was from a location closer to London than my actual departure location to save money. When confronted by railway staff, after questioning it was clear to them wha I had done. I was honest in admitting to what I had done and to tried to cooperate with them. I showed them previous examples of where I have done this before.

I have been doing this for over a year now, so there are a considerable number of journeys (probably over 100) that I have done this for. Whilst I knew this wasn't the right thing to do, I didn't realise the severity of the crime I had committed and was unaware that I was in fact committing fraud. I had expected to be issued with a fine on the spot, but instead I was told the issue may be taken to court.

I had my rights read to me and I was cautioned, with me handing over my personal details to them. I was told that they would be in contact having investigated me and my previous travelling.

I am now looking for advice regarding what I should do next. I am now aware of the severity of the crime I have committed and was wondering if member had advice regarding possible punishments/criminal record as well as if I should look into legal representation? As well as this I will be leaving the country for 2 months, so I will be unavailable in the UK until October.

Thank you.

 

[gray1404]

All you can do now is wait for a letter from the train company advising you on the next steps. Very often this can be to ask for the passengers account of what has happened. This can take some time, anything up to six months. It may still be possible for you to negotiate an out of court settlement with the train company - which may be costly but avoid going to Court.

I do not condone what you have done at all, however I would advise you strongly not to incriminate yourself any further. It may be useful to get professional legal advise before you say anything else. But at this point all you can do is wait for the letter to arrive.

As you are going to be out of the country until October, is there a trusted friend or family member who can (with your permission) check your mail for you and send you a scanned copy of anything that arrives while you are away? This is important as you may not have long to respond once they write to you. Failing that, are you going to a country with a reliable postal service? If so, you can set up a temporary redirection of your mail with Royal Mail to overseas addresses too. I would only do this if the country you are going to has a reliable postal service.

 

[30907]

To add to the previous post:
If you haven't already done so, it would be worth your while reading this information section of the forum, starting at 8.6.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/railuk-fares-ticketing-guide-section-8-legal.71833/
If the Train Company decides to prosecute you themselves, it may well be (on the basis of your post) under the Regulation of Railways Act. Only the police AFAIK can investigate with a view to prosecuting for fraud as such. If convicted, you will be fined (not imprisoned!) and it is a recordable offence.

 

[cuccir]

In cases where the train company suspects significant, ongoing fare evasion, they may write to invite you to interview, rather (or as well as) writing to ask you to send through a written account of the events. You don't have to attend but it may be worthwhile; it may be useful to have a lawyer attend this too.

It is not unheard of for train companies to settle out of court for signficiant fare evasion; notoriously for £43,000 for one City executive. You're obviously not at that level but what you can take from that story is that any settlement which avoids court will take into account the value of the fares you've evaded - this should give you an idea of the sort of amount you might pay.

 

[Bungle158]

As per above, expect a non custodial sentence IF this goes to court and is dealt with under the Regulation of Railways Act. However the potential fine and costs etc may make your eyes water. Have a trawl through similar posts, some of which give an idea of current court practice.

If convicted, you will have a criminal record. Again, its potential effects are admirably dealt with elsewhere in this section.

AFAIK, it is for the police and Crown Prosecution Service to proceed in cases of alleged fraud, a much more serious offence. Potential sentences here are much more stringent. This is an unlikely, though not impossible outcome from the info you have provided.

I would certainly take legal advice before committing to an interview under caution. A legal professional should also attend if possible. Others have cautioned ref incriminating yourself in "print"or other media. Sound advice in my.opinion.

 

[najaB]

. I was honest in admitting to what I had done and to tried to cooperate with them. I showed them previous examples of where I have done this before.

Based on this, the TOC concerned has all the evidence they need to take this matter to court, where they world likely succeed in making their case.

I'm not sure what advice or assistance we can give you above and beyond what's already been posted: keep an eye on your mail (or get someone to do it for you), respond promptly to any correspondence, be cooperative, and try to make it clear that you now understand what you've done was wrong and that you won't do it in future.

 

[Doorbell12]

Dear all,

Thank you for your time in replying to my thread, it is appreciated.

As suggested, I have read through the legal documentation that was attached and I am now fully aware of what I have done.

Would anyone recommend contacting the TOC concerned prior to receiving a letter from them? Explaining my situation and as well as apologising profusely and genuinely showing my remorse? Or would it be best practise to wait until I have received a letter/contact from them?

From my point of view (probably expected) I would want this case to be settled from outside of court through a settlement. This is the first time I have ever been in trouble and I am a young individual about to start my career, so the idea of a criminal record would be devastating. Would anyone happen to know the likelihood of a settlement?

As for legal representation, is it worth looking into this? If so, should I look at a railways specific law firm or a general criminal law law firm?

Many thanks,
Doorbell12

 

[cuccir]

Would anyone recommend contacting the TOC concerned prior to receiving a letter from them? Explaining my situation and as well as apologising profusely and genuinely showing my remorse? Or would it be best practise to wait until I have received a letter/contact from them?

I would usually advise against getting in touch preemptively - we've no evidence that it helps. Usually when people do get in touch early they report back here that they get very little sense out of a train company: if your case hasn't yet been processed ie if it is sitting in the RPI's (Revenue Protection Inspector's) notes or files and not yet passed on to the prosecutions team, then whoever you're talking to probably won't be able to access any details about it.

This is the first time I have ever been in trouble and I am a young individual about to start my career, so the idea of a criminal record would be devastating.

It does depend what career you're going into - even a prosecution under the stricter 'Regulation of the Railways' Act is considered spent after 1 year, so only needs declaring for jobs which require DBS checks. In principle there's no reason why having a small criminal record should effect anyone's life beyond the fine and initial embarrassment. There are a few careers that it can make harder, but in many professional jobs it's not an issue.

Would anyone happen to know the likelihood of a settlement?

It's hard to judge. What train company stopped you - they have different policies? If it was TfL then they are less likely to settle than most but they do sometimes chose to.

As for legal representation, is it worth looking into this? If so, should I look at a railways specific law firm or a general criminal law law firm?

When it becomes apparent what the train company is planning to do, then it might be. In most cases we suggest general criminal law as a railway specific law firm will be expensive and what is at stake - a middling fine and a conviction spent after a year - is usually not worth the cost. Railway experts are probably only worth it (1) for individuals already in high-paying jobs who don't want to lose those jobs or (2) where the extra cost of a specialist lawyer might help reduce a very high fine or out of court settlement. In cases where a relatively small amount has been evaded and someone is intending to plead guilty then legal representation is probably not worth it at all; you haven't said how much exactly you've saved but we can guess that it must be in the thousands at least, so in that case I'd think having some legal representation in court and in an interview with a TOC if it happens may well be useful, yes.

 

[najaB]

As for legal representation, is it worth looking into this? If so, should I look at a railways specific law firm or a general criminal law law firm?

To second what @cuccir posted above, specialist railway lawyers are not cheap - you can easily be looking at over £1000 for them to take the case, so unless you stand to lose a lot more they don't represent a good return on investment.

 

[Doorbell12]

Dear Cuccir and NajaB,

Thank you for your time in responding to me. The TOC in question have since been in contact with me, and the possibility of a settlement claim is looking promising. You have both been of great help and I will be sure to update you when I have more information.

Many thanks,
D12

 

[Bungle158]

As a general point, rather than specific reply, declaration of unspent criminal convictions does form part of the recruitment process for many employers hiring new staff.

As is amply explained elsewhere, the issue can be complicated if the individual is engaged in or seeking work which requires a higher level of DBS clearance.

This is not to say that a conviction of this nature is anything like an automatic bar to employment.

However, in the complex web of visa and entry arrangements, things can be uncertain indeed. For example, the US Visa Waiver Scheme demands declaration off "offences involving moral turpitude". There is no time limit or other clue to levels of seriousness involved. Those affected are obliged to seek regular visas. The US does not recognise spent convictions in this respect, although Canada appears to.

Similarly, both Australia and New Zealand have become stricter over "criminal" history, even for short term visitors.Those concerned should check entry requirements for their chosen destination.

Whilst fare avoidance is relatively minor in the greater scheme of things, it can have unforseen repercussions

 

[najaB]

For example, the US Visa Waiver Scheme demands declaration off "offences involving moral turpitude".

I thought that wording had been removed? Certainly, the US Embassy's website now advises applying for a visa if you've been arrested for *any* offence.

https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver-program/additional-requirements/

 

[Bungle158]

I thought that wording had been removed? Certainly, the US Embassy's website now advises applying for a visa if you've been arrested for *any* offence.

https://uk.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-waiver-program/additional-requirements/

Although the wording on the ETA site no longer uses the wording Moral Turpitude, interpretation of criminality is still based on this archaic sounding term. It also features in explanatory notes. However, my point was less about semantics than the potential effect of a criminal conviction on visa/visa waiver applicants. The requirement to declare all recorded criminal activity remains in place. In the US, it almost certainly excludes those affected from the waiver scheme

 

[najaB]

The requirement to declare all recorded criminal activity remains in place. In the US, it almost certainly excludes those affected from the waiver scheme

It actually wasn't pedantry about semantics. I was actually making the point that you made in reply - that an arrest (note not conviction) for any offense has the potential to impact on visa applications (at least as far as the USA is concerned).

 

[Bungle158]

No inference intended. The term is archaic and open to misinterpretation. My concern is that fare evasion is sometimes passed off as something of a minor event, when clearly, it can have unforseen consequences