Peter of England: A REal guru.

[notorial dissent]

The one thing I have never understood out of all this is how PoE got some fool to print checks for him in the first place. The printer has to have been either very very stupid, or borderline illegitimate is the closest I can come, or PoE really told one whopper of a lie to get them to go along, and they have since refused and he can't find anyone else dumb enough to do it now. I'm not sure just what the civil and criminal liability would/could be for the printer having been involved in an ongoing scam.

Technically, I believe, checks are actually considered Bills of Exchange, not Promissory Notes, but of a distinct and special species as the laws concerning checks are a good deal different than those for BOE's. That being said, they do share two very important things in common, they DO NOT HAVE to be accepted by anyone, or paid if there are no funds available on the paying end.

[hardcopy]

Maybe by creating WeRe bank he has upset the Vatican. Has anyone checked under Blackfriars Bridge?

Haha, now that one really is a tale of conspiracy and corruption

[Dai Kiwi]

The one thing I have never understood out of all this is how PoE got some fool to print checks for him in the first place. The printer has to have been either very very stupid, or borderline illegitimate is the closest I can come, or PoE really told one whopper of a lie to get them to go along, and they have since refused and he can't find anyone else dumb enough to do it now. I'm not sure just what the civil and criminal liability would/could be for the printer having been involved in an ongoing scam.

Early in this thread it appeared that the chequebooks were printed by Communisis, a large printing & design company. I'm going with the 'whopper' option. It'd be interesting to see what their press office has to say...

[slowsmile]

The one thing I have never understood out of all this is how PoE got some fool to print checks for him in the first place. The printer has to have been either very very stupid, or borderline illegitimate is the closest I can come, or PoE really told one whopper of a lie to get them to go along, and they have since refused and he can't find anyone else dumb enough to do it now. I'm not sure just what the civil and criminal liability would/could be for the printer having been involved in an ongoing scam.

Early in this thread it appeared that the chequebooks were printed by Communisis, a large printing & design company. I'm going with the 'whopper' option. It'd be interesting to see what their press office has to say...

Would any printer have thought that anyone would try to use a cheque with a non-existent sort code, an account number that was a series of 8's and no name of the account holder on the cheque, to actually pay for anything via the clearing system?

I don't think it would need to be too much of a whopper - if he'd said it was for a local currency / trading scheme like the "Totnes pound" then would it have raised many eyebrows?

[Tml69]

Appears there has been something of a crack down on mail forwarding services who are used by scam companies. Seems like this applies to the City of London but must be some similar issues for Peter's Manchester "office".

"Fancy addresses house boiler rooms to trick people out of tens of thousands of pounds
It’s the prestigious address that gives an air of authenticity to the con artists who are duping the unwary out of millions of pounds before they disappear without trace. It only costs a few hundred pounds to rent a “virtual office” that redirects mail and phone calls. What could be more respectable than, say, an office in Tower 42, still better known as the former NatWest Tower and an icon of the London skyline?...

Last week, Regus was found guilty at the City of London magistrates court and fined £11,000 plus £16,600 costs."

http://gu.com/p/4b5qv/sbl

[notorial dissent]

I don't know how it is done in the UK, but here I can order checks from several reputable check printers with no real hassle, except that they verify all the information supplied with the bank to make sure that I am a real customer and it is a real account, and also that the bank exists, they can check the routing number/sort code on line and verify it is valid, if not order gets canceled. Or, I can spend a bit of money and buy a software kit and special paper and print my own.

I just can't imagine though how PoE got away with this to start with.

[slowsmile]

I don't know how it is done in the UK, but here I can order checks from several reputable check printers with no real hassle, except that they verify all the information supplied with the bank to make sure that I am a real customer and it is a real account, and also that the bank exists, they can check the routing number/sort code on line and verify it is valid, if not order gets canceled. Or, I can spend a bit of money and buy a software kit and special paper and print my own.

I just can't imagine though how PoE got away with this to start with.

Here in the UK the bank prints the cheque book.

As I've said above - I don't think the printers would have thought anyone would try to use one for anything other than a members only trading scheme or similar - the vast majority of people are simply not aware of GOODF and it's followers - probably the only people stupid and greedy enough to have fallen for the con.

[AndyPandy]

I don't know how it is done in the UK, but here I can order checks from several reputable check printers with no real hassle, except that they verify all the information supplied with the bank to make sure that I am a real customer and it is a real account, and also that the bank exists, they can check the routing number/sort code on line and verify it is valid, if not order gets canceled. Or, I can spend a bit of money and buy a software kit and special paper and print my own.

I just can't imagine though how PoE got away with this to start with.

Here in the UK the bank prints the cheque book.

As I've said above - I don't think the printers would have thought anyone would try to use one for anything other than a members only trading scheme or similar - the vast majority of people are simply not aware of GOODF and it's followers - probably the only people stupid and greedy enough to have fallen for the con.

I think it's the same Company who print the banks cheques, they only did one print run, they got wind of what they were being used for and refused to do another, leaving Peter high and dry as the supply ran out. Think he was scrabbling around to find another printer

[PeanutGallery]

Here in the UK the bank prints the cheque book.

As I've said above - I don't think the printers would have thought anyone would try to use one for anything other than a members only trading scheme or similar - the vast majority of people are simply not aware of GOODF and it's followers - probably the only people stupid and greedy enough to have fallen for the con.

Actually their is an association of cheque printers in the UK who carry out the actual work for the banks and other financial institutions. More information is available here

Peter apparently used a real cheque printer for the books, I think he either wasn't clear about what he was going to use the cheques for, or the company just took the money and turned a blind eye. From what I understand about the actual cheques, the printing company took some steps to ensure they would be unlikely to be used in the banking system (putting a non-existant sort code on and making all the account numbers the same).

However those steps didn't stop the cheques from being sold or used in the commission of fraud. I would have thought that the printers might have some culpability for supplying and making the instruments used in Peter's con and should probably face a fine, if for no other reason to encourage other printers to ask better questions and take better steps before printing off a load of chequebooks for anyone looking to imitate Peters plan.

[Pox]

I don't know how it is done in the UK, but here I can order checks from several reputable check printers with no real hassle, except that they verify all the information supplied with the bank to make sure that I am a real customer and it is a real account, and also that the bank exists, they can check the routing number/sort code on line and verify it is valid, if not order gets canceled.

.

Does this mean that you have tried?
If you have, why? Just to check (no pun intended) how easy it is maybe?

[notorial dissent]

I've used two different check printers over the years, had one of them mis-key an acct number and they called me back on it.

Several of the accounting applications I've used over the years had check printing functions built in to them, we just bought the blank check stock and printed at need. T'ain't rocket science. I also worked for a company that got taken for several big chunks of change by customers who printed their own.

[ArthurWankspittle]

....I think he either wasn't clear about what he was going to use the cheques for.....

This ^. Suppose he told them they were film props or similar? Any culpability on the printing company depends a lot on what Peter said to them to get them to do the work.

[Pox]

I've used two different check printers over the years, had one of them mis-key an acct number and they called me back on it.

Several of the accounting applications I've used over the years had check printing functions built in to them, we just bought the blank check stock and printed at need. T'ain't rocket science. I also worked for a company that got taken for several big chunks of change by customers who printed their own.

so does this mean that in your neck of the woods that any old Tom, dick or Harry can order a run of cheque books ? Or maybe you were/are in a professional position to do so?
Don't wish to pry into your personal circumstances but some are suggesting that a company that printed cheques for POE in the UK are somehow complicit in the alleged fraud that POE has brought about/committed/encouraged
P.S. What happened to the customers who 'printed their own'?

[PeanutGallery]

....I think he either wasn't clear about what he was going to use the cheques for.....

This ^. Suppose he told them they were film props or similar? Any culpability on the printing company depends a lot on what Peter said to them to get them to do the work.

The Fraud Act 2006 would agree with your position, the act states:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

The key word is "knowing" (and to a lesser extent "intending") if the printers didn't know the fake cheque books would be used in the scam, then it would be hard to say that they have done anything wrong. As such any prosecution of them is going to turn on what the Police can prove they knew. If the printers didn't know and didn't intend the books to be used in fraud then they should be fine (aside from damage to their reputation), I would say that on the face of it, I don't think they intended the books to be used to commit fraud, they made some effort to try and prevent them being used as real cheque books (though it was plainly not enough effort).

Peter on the other hand is most likely entirely guilty of this section, he sold the cheque books as part of his fraud he both knew and intended them to be used in the commission of fraud.

[slowsmile]

[

The key word is "knowing" (and to a lesser extent "intending") if the printers didn't know the fake cheque books would be used in the scam, then it would be hard to say that they have done anything wrong. As such any prosecution of them is going to turn on what the Police can prove they knew. If the printers didn't know and didn't intend the books to be used in fraud then they should be fine (aside from damage to their reputation), I would say that on the face of it, I don't think they intended the books to be used to commit fraud, they made some effort to try and prevent them being used as real cheque books (though it was plainly not enough effort).

I think printing cheques with no valid sort code, an account number consisting entirely of 8's, no account name, not crossed A/C Payee only and no currency symbol would be enough for a "reasonable" person.

I would contend that most members of GOODF / WeRe Bank etc fall well outside that definition.

[guilty]

The key word is "knowing" (and to a lesser extent "intending") if the printers didn't know the fake cheque books would be used in the scam, then it would be hard to say that they have done anything wrong. As such any prosecution of them is going to turn on what the Police can prove they knew. If the printers didn't know and didn't intend the books to be used in fraud then they should be fine (aside from damage to their reputation), I would say that on the face of it, I don't think they intended the books to be used to commit fraud, they made some effort to try and prevent them being used as real cheque books (though it was plainly not enough effort).

Peter on the other hand is most likely entirely guilty of this section, he sold the cheque books as part of his fraud he both knew and intended them to be used in the commission of fraud.

If the cheques were intended to be used merely as a community currency then they could have been printed with a John Bull set or straight off a PC. Licenced cheque printers include a variety of security printing systems to ensure that the cheques pass through C&CCC verification checks. It would be difficult for Communisis to claim that they thought the cheques were for anything other than an attempt to commit fraud, no matter what sort codes or account codes were printed on them. I warned them of this a couple of months ago. That may be why they cancelled the second print run, but they still have to answer for the decision to print the first run. It was a bad decision, and they could yet lose their licence for that error.

[Bones]

There has been no fanfare, youtube video's or even party poppers being popped to celebrate the launch of WeRe Banks gold backed currency. In fact there has been no sign of Peter at all, on either FB of the WeRe Bank Forum.

I think he is on his Summer Holidays

The latest posts in the WeRe Bank Forum all follow a similar trend

[Bones]

You would think that after a couple of months, without a single cheque clearing, even the most mentally challenged GOODF (cough Jimmyw) would begin to question if WeRe cheques work.

On the WeRe Bank forum there are a couple of people, trying their hardest (YA and MOI) to be the next Bertie but without Peter around they are looking pathetic.

[Hercule Parrot]

Oh dear, this chap is totally dumb. He's somehow obtained a stay on the basis that he'll arrange an electronic transfer to the mortgage company. So he either thinks that PoE will allow him to take a large UKP payment out of werebank, or he thinks that he can use BACS to transfer Re's (and that the mortgage company will have to accept them as legal tender, at a 1:1 equivalence to UKP).

Looking forward to hearing how this works out for him...

[PeanutGallery]

I'm going to guess that the stay will be lifted and then the court process will continue. My guess is he'll next be asking for help from Response or ETFOTB or GOODF and blaming the nasty water company for not wanting to accept a cheque that wasn't going to be honoured.