Peter of England: A REal guru.

[grixit]

There is an organization that deals in unregulated promissory notes. It even trades in them.

It's called the Mafia.

[Normal Wisdom]

To be fair to Peter (of England) he does warn us all in the video that the artist formerly known as Ceylon has posted.

"It's either something or it's nothing. This is either total lunacy and idiocy or, it will work ..."

[wanglepin]

Notorial, here's a genuine WeRe Bank Promissory Note in all its glory:
http://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/up ... -NOTE1.pdf

I am thinking of filling in one of these PN's, as I am wondering what Peter will do when I tell him to go whistle for any money (sterling) the idiot believes I may owe him..

[PeanutGallery]

I wouldn't waste my time filling in the note just to mess with Peter. Even though, if he did come after his money, the note might be considered hokum and bogus by a Judge, it could also be interpreted that by filling it in an agreement was reached to pay Peter that sum in ten years time. Personally I wouldn't choose to expose myself to the risk or bother of giving Peter any sort of potential claim against me and would instead recommend that if you want to give Peter a hard time a better tactic is to report his antics to the appropriate authorities.

[NYGman]

To be fair to Peter (of England) he does warn us all in the video that the artist formerly known as Ceylon has posted.

"It's either something or it's nothing. This is either total lunacy and idiocy or, it will work ..."

When I watched and heard him say that at the start, my bet was on Lunacy and Idiocy. Then I listened to some of it, and confirmed, it is the Former, not the latter. and at least in the parts I skipped through, did not even go down the path of what would happen if this was held to be total lunacy and idiocy, but at least he has set it out well for his dupes.

He is basically saying that either he is a financial and legal god who has figured out a way where we all have access to a possible limitless amount of free money, or he is a crazy guy spouting total crap that will never work and that there really is no free money. I suggest the chances are more likely that he is a loony with a crack pot idea, bringing in others to take part in his fiscal fantasies in order to validate Peters need to be important.

[wanglepin]

a better tactic is to report his antics to the appropriate authorities.

Yes, Pg, I did that last week and had has a reply. But you are correct of course.

[PeanutGallery]

It appears, from the latest nutterings on GoodF, that the first of the WeRe bank cheque books have reached Peter's customers.

At least two posters have claimed to have received them and enthused that they are going to be busily using them to pay off debts. I think we only need to wait a short while for the first cheques to be returned and one would imagine that arrests would follow shortly.

[littleFred]

I'll bet the "leaders" like Ceylon and co will hang fire until the foot-soldiers have been over the top first.

[notorial dissent]

I don't know what normal bounce time is in the UK, but I can't imagine it is more than a few days at most, so I expect we should start seeing the grand scheme begin to unravel fairly shortly. Possibly followed by some arrests for passing bad checks. Some people just have no sense of humor about things like that. Is there a figure where it goes from being a misdemeanor to a felony in the UK? Here there is a dollar figure that ups the ante.

[littleFred]

There are three levels of possible bouncing. If the cheque hasn't bounced by the end of the sixth working day after deposit, the payment to whoever deposited the cheque is guaranteed.

A cheque posted over the weekend or on Monday will arrive on, say, Wednesday. Then another maybe another two days for utility companies to put into their own banks. Then the six-day clock starts. When they bounce (which could any time within the six days), a couple of days for the companies to complain to the suckers.

So it could be a couple of weeks before we hear.

Writing a cheque that bounces isn't in itself an offence, even if the writer knew it would bounce. (I think this is different in the USA.) If fraud is committed, there isn't a fixed cutoff between summary and indictment trials. The decision is made (I think) by the magistrate who is first given the information about the accusation. Maximum penalties are ten years free B&B.

EDIT: For completeness, I should add that bouncing might happen after six working days. But the payee (utility company etc) doesn't need to worry about that; the bank can't claw back the money from them. But the bank can still take action against he drawer of the cheque.

More info at http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque ... consumers/

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that since they don't have a valid sort code the turn around from the clearing house should be pretty quick. I would think that with them being fraudulent items, that it would void whatever time limits they have in place.

[littleFred]

I suspect these "cheques" are not real cheques. If so, but the clearing system pays the innocent supplier and doesn't spot the problem within six days, can the banks claim the money back from the supplier? I don't know. I think it should be able to, but I don't know if it can.

Maybe the clearing system will spot the problem immediately so, as you say, it bounces very quickly.

[PeanutGallery]

I don't know what normal bounce time is in the UK, but I can't imagine it is more than a few days at most, so I expect we should start seeing the grand scheme begin to unravel fairly shortly. Possibly followed by some arrests for passing bad checks. Some people just have no sense of humor about things like that. Is there a figure where it goes from being a misdemeanor to a felony in the UK? Here there is a dollar figure that ups the ante.

Cheque processing in the UK is explained here, which is quite an informative read: http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/about_ ... _overview/

In regard to LittleFred's concerns, none of these will pass clearing. The sort code doesn't exist and neither in a very practical sense does WeRe bank. Funds only pass between banks through accounts held at the Bank of England. Basically the total for Natwest cheques to Barclays accounts goes one way and the total for Barclays cheques to Natwest accounts goes the other. Natwest and Barclays then credit or debit individual accounts accordingly. WeRe bank doesn't have an account at the Bank of England so no money can be transferred on its behalf.

In respect of what would happen if the cheque had a degree of validity, this would be very much like a scam that was very popular on Ebay some time ago. It would involve a person buying an object, and when it came to payment they sent a large overpayment. They would then email, explaining the overpayment and ask that the excess funds be sent back once the money order cleared. The scammer would be hoping that the false cheque would pass the first stage of clearing, that funds would be mistakenly credited to an account, and then they would get their 'refund', usually a day after the mark had sent back the overpayment the entire cheque would have bounced and the initial credit would be reversed.

This left a lot of people in a substantial amount of debt. Someone trying this scam with a cheque from WeRe bank though wouldn't have any prospects of success, because the bank doesn't exist in the very important places where it would need to exist.

I would expect the problem being that when the WeRe member sends a cheque off, it won't get past the clearing house - because the bank won't be recognised. As such the rate of when they are returned will be determined by when the organisation being paid, submits the cheques to it's bank for redemption.

In the UK we don't have a notion of misdemeanour's to felonies, those are alien to our system. Fraud is fraud and while the amount may aggravate sentencing, it would remain a fraud conviction, so while if you commit fraud for a nominal amount you might receive a limited sentence, your conviction would have same the impact on your future prospects as if you had defrauded others of millions.

Whether this will be fraud will depend on the intent that the cheques were used in. I would argue that some of these are guilty of little more than being stupidly naive, others are possibly looking for an easy ride and separating the ill-intent from the gullible would likely prove difficult. However this is only for someone using the cheques. I would anticipate that Peter, may find himself facing some very serious charges relating to his role organising this. Certainly he has 'sold' a product that does not exist. In that respect Peter has defrauded, and is defrauding, the customers of WeRe bank.

[littleFred]

I'm not sure if Peter has ever claimed that he will honour the cheques, ie pay pounds sterling for them.

A WeRe customer is open to prosecution under Theft Act 1978 and Fraud Act 2006, and perhaps others.

An essential ingredient to prosecution under either Act is that the customer knew that neither the customer nor the WeRe Bank would pay the supplier. Although is is pretty impossible to prove what a person knew, I think enough evidence is available to make the case that the entire scheme is based around the feature that neither the customer not the WeRe Bank would pay, and that the court can infer beyond reasonable doubt that the customer knew this.

If the CPS deems the evidential test is passed, it then asks: is prosecution of suckers in the public interest? I'm less sure about that.

Of Peter, I have no doubt that he would pass both the evidential and the public-interest tests.

[Jeffrey]

Seems to me that the standard should be, would a reasonable person believe the person receiving the check would get paid.

[PeanutGallery]

I think any prosecution will come down to how credible the scheme and how gullible the WeRe customers appear to the Jury, who may well decide to apply Jeffrey's standard in their deliberations (and we will never know if they do). However whether customers of WeRe bank are prosecuted will likely be a decision taken by the CPS. To that extent we just have to wait and see what happens.

Peter can't honour the cheques, because they will never get back to his bank. In fact in the Allonge documentation - which he encourages to be sent with the cheques - it has some gibberish about how if the cheque bounces then the debt is extinguished. The existence of the Allonge itself is proof that Peter has no intention of honouring the cheques. I would also doubt that he would have the means to do so. The promissory notes he does have are essentially worthless (given that they cannot be traded without losing their value).

[wanglepin]

It appears, from the latest nutterings on GoodF, that the first of the WeRe bank cheque books have reached Peter's customers.

after receiving his cheque book,ThamesMan wrote,

I feel like a small child pon a Christmas morn

So will I when it all goes pear-shaped.
I wonder has the big promoter bertiebert or Mark Haining (ceylon) have received theirs yet? or Guy Taylor come to that.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I find it incredible that people would consider attempting to use these cheques when Peter has supplied no evidence of these cheques being used successfully by himself. Peter hasn't shown them that they work but that doesn't appear to deter these idiots.

[notorial dissent]

A small part of me really wants to believe that these people really aren't that stupid or gullible, unfortunately, a very much bigger part of me sadly knows better.

[mufc1959]

As I understand it, the 2-4-6 day cycle only works with real banks and building societies that use the UK clearing system.

I think what's likely to happen here is that a cheque received by the local authority in payment of council tax will be paid into the local authority's bank, let's say it's HSBC. Under the normal clearing system, all the clearing banks account to one another for cheques received and cheques to be paid. The cheques going through the clearing system are read by machine and sorted. This is where the first problem will arise for WeRe Bank, because the cheques won't be recognised by the scanners.

So the cheque will be returned to HSBC from the clearing centre. HSBC may just send it back to the local authoirty. But it might process it for settlement by sending it to the palatial corporate HQ of WeRe Bank at 83 Ducie St. This is where a bigger, second, problem will arise. HSBC Bank will expect payment in sterling and we all know WeRe Bank has no actual money to send HSBC to settle the cheque. HSBC certainly won't accept a WeRe Bank promissory note. It's at this point things will start to get very real, very quickly for Peter of England.

Or, hopefully, someone at HSBC will go "WTF?", google WeRe Bank and then contact the Fraud Squad.