Originally Posted by
Chip
They gave him the biggest fine they possibly could in order to have maximum media attention, it was a political decision as much as a legal one IMHO
He'll probably appeal and get it reduced a bit, it will still be harsh though even if they do drop it a bit.
No they didn't. He could have been given 5k fine per offence - he was charged with ten offences so the maximum fine could have been 50k.
Either way, the Fraud Act 2006 is way over the top and way too expansive. It gives scope for more or less anything that is "dishonest" or incorrect to be pursued as a criminal charge for fraud.
Absolutely ridiculous that criminal charges that severe would be brought against someone, at the very worse that's an offence more suited to a caution. Having said that that, it is not the first case I am aware of that is directly related to eBay where someone has been given a punishment over the top in an attempt to set an example.
Quite annoying when there are hundreds of cases of people committing more deliberate and harmful fraud such as benefit fraud where a caution is the only punishment applied.
Typically wonderful UK "justice" system. Disgusting.