• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Blues star Ranger admits £2,000 online banking fraud

Forums New posts
Floval Flyer said:
Another thing;

Ranger is represented by Angus Bunyan, whom I believe is a top defence barrister (presumably paid for by Ron). You could therefore presume that based on the evidence he advised Ranger to plead 'guilty' to conspiracy to defraud, but not guilty to money laundering.
?
Click to expand...

Apparently when this Angus Bunyan has a real tough case to defend, he seeks advice from Ron.
 
Do any legal beagles know what the term "the charge remains on file" means, in relation to the laundering charge?

Does that mean that Nile is going to court for this charge or that they have effectively dropped this?
 
AndyT said:
Do any legal beagles know what the term "the charge remains on file" means, in relation to the laundering charge?

Does that mean that Nile is going to court for this charge or that they have effectively dropped this?
Click to expand...

Bit of both. It means that it can be revived at some point. That almost never happens though.

To quote: Letting charges lie on file is an option available to the prosecution principally in considering mixed pleas. As an alternative to offering no evidence (entailing acquittal) or proceeding to trial, it allows the prosecutor to request an order that remaining counts or indictments be shelved – resulting in neither conviction nor acquittal – to be proceeded with only with the leave of a court. Whilst in theory these charges may be resurrected at a later stage, in practice such cases are extremely rare. Being, in effect, an order for no trial, such a decision is the prerogative of the prosecution (DPP v. Humpreys [1977] AC 1 at 46; Derby Crown Court ex parte Brooks (1985) 80 Cr App R 164).
 
Firestorm said:
i think legally its a first offence and he has admitted to transferring the funds. nothing to do with making the call. There doesnot appear to be anything about making calls i the report. One of the other defendant had details of 500 bank accounts, NR just transferred money from one of them. There is no mention of whether details were purchased , obtained by hacking or scammed by phone and no details of who actually obtained the details. And as he has pleaded that wont come out in the corse of the case against him.
Click to expand...

So essentially money laundering? A charge he has pleaded not guilty to.
 
Napster said:
Bit of both. It means that it can be revived at some point. That almost never happens though.

To quote: Letting charges lie on file is an option available to the prosecution principally in considering mixed pleas. As an alternative to offering no evidence (entailing acquittal) or proceeding to trial, it allows the prosecutor to request an order that remaining counts or indictments be shelved – resulting in neither conviction nor acquittal – to be proceeded with only with the leave of a court. Whilst in theory these charges may be resurrected at a later stage, in practice such cases are extremely rare. Being, in effect, an order for no trial, such a decision is the prerogative of the prosecution (DPP v. Humpreys [1977] AC 1 at 46; Derby Crown Court ex parte Brooks (1985) 80 Cr App R 164).
Click to expand...

MO 'Napster'.

It sounds like Nile's solicitor has done pretty well, here.

Be interesting to see if part of this process involves Nile providing information against the other two defendants.

The other point to come out of the report yesterday, was that the beneficiary of the money transferred by Nile, was an "innocent third party" so that sounds like an old debt he had to settle, possibly, with someone or to pay off a credit card or suchlike, rather than being passed on to a criminal accomplice.
 
The guilty plea may well be an indication that a 'deal' of sorts has been agreed between legals, but dont quote me on that. Non custodial the likely outcome. Fingers crossed.
 
Napster said:
Bit of both. It means that it can be revived at some point. That almost never happens though.

To quote: Letting charges lie on file is an option available to the prosecution principally in considering mixed pleas. As an alternative to offering no evidence (entailing acquittal) or proceeding to trial, it allows the prosecutor to request an order that remaining counts or indictments be shelved – resulting in neither conviction nor acquittal – to be proceeded with only with the leave of a court. Whilst in theory these charges may be resurrected at a later stage, in practice such cases are extremely rare. Being, in effect, an order for no trial, such a decision is the prerogative of the prosecution (DPP v. Humpreys [1977] AC 1 at 46; Derby Crown Court ex parte Brooks (1985) 80 Cr App R 164).
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that if he doesn't give evidence in the trial of the other two, then this charge may reappear.

The Police will not be interested in NR and his use of 1 bank account, they will want to know where the 500 found on the other blokes phone came from and get to those who are actually getting the details.

The ringleader would have got loads of people to transfer the funds on individual basis' , that way the sentence they face , if caught, is not really sufficient to warrant them grassing up the ringleader , as well as the "compensation" the ringleader may pay him would not need to be that large either.

Ranger , at the time would not have had a great deal to lose if he got caught, now he has got his life back on track, he has potentially more to lose and may well be viewed by the police as a far better chance to give evidence .
 
There are potentially far worse penalties for grassing than a small custodial sentence .. Depending on what the ringleader is capable of nobody should automatically assume anything.
 
AndyT said:
MO 'Napster'.

It sounds like Nile's solicitor has done pretty well, here.

Be interesting to see if part of this process involves Nile providing information against the other two defendants.

The other point to come out of the report yesterday, was that the beneficiary of the money transferred by Nile, was an "innocent third party" so that sounds like an old debt he had to settle, possibly, with someone or to pay off a credit card or suchlike, rather than being passed on to a criminal accomplice.
Click to expand...

maybe, but also maybe its spomeone that trusts Ranger or owes him money. Ranger may have convinced him that Ranger could not take the money into his own bank account as he neeeded it and as he was overdrawn the bank would take it , or if it went though his bank account his accountant would see it etc etc . There are lots of reasons he could have convinced someone to take the money into a legitament account and then possibly withdrawl it as cash and give to Ranger. Hence the initial Money laundering charge--- using the innocent partys bank account to make dirty money clean
 
The trial of Nile Rangers two alleged accomplices should have started today. He will be sentenced at the end of the trial after he pleaded guilty .Hopefully the trial lasts longer than a week then.
 
Well i hope the judge is not a Millwall fan ,otherwise no way Ranger will be allowed to play ,hard to play when you behind bars.Shouldnt have said bars ,im sure theres going to be some remarks there,should probably have said being held in custody lol
:smile:
 
The best possible outcome for Ranger and the club would be for him to be sentenced to a 6 week community order during the season break, meaning he cannot go on holiday, or go partying and must follow a strict curfew, and must also donate all his time supporting charitable projects, ideally helping people with severe learning difficulties.

Numpty judge will probably bang him up and he'll hooked on spice before you can say Jason Williams...
 
Floval Flyer said:
The best possible outcome for Ranger and the club would be for him to be sentenced to a 6 week community order during the season break, meaning he cannot go on holiday, or go partying and must follow a strict curfew, and must also donate all his time supporting charitable projects, ideally helping people with severe learning difficulties.

Numpty judge will probably bang him up and he'll hooked on spice before you can say Jason Williams...
Click to expand...

So you've already decided the judge is a numpty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top