How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Wait a moment……it sounds to me as if he has had several different offences for which there is a total of 7.5 years. However, these have very likely been given to run concurrently not consecutively, which means he will only serve around 2.5 years or even less if early parole is granted. There is a huge difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing. The media will “always” give the higher consecutive sentence and “not the true” lower concurrent one as it sounds much more dramatic.
How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Sod giving the benefit of the doubt.
Next time you're at The Valley arrange a meeting with Elliott and get him to tell you the crack.
Disgraceful. He already got 7 and a half years & now will have to serve another 3 years if he cant cough up the money by March next year. Ludicrous sentencing.
More than people get for rape & manslaughter. Plenty of Irish got released under the GFA when serving life for murder.
Justice........pah !!
Really? He stole £9.3M and it reads like you think he should be allowed to keep the £370K he has left. You're a great advertisement for financial advisers.
Knowing @golfaddick as I do I’m sure he doesn’t mean that at all. I think he’s just worded it wrongly.
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Sod giving the benefit of the doubt.
Next time you're at The Valley arrange a meeting with Elliott and get him to tell you the crack.
Enjoy the weekend mate
and you Gary .. you still in Braaaaaaaazzziiiiiilllll ?
How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Sod giving the benefit of the doubt.
Next time you're at The Valley arrange a meeting with Elliott and get him to tell you the crack.
Enjoy the weekend mate
and you Gary .. you still in Braaaaaaaazzziiiiiilllll ?
Brazil you say......you mean where all the villains go. Now we know where all that dosh has gone 😉
How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Sod giving the benefit of the doubt.
Next time you're at The Valley arrange a meeting with Elliott and get him to tell you the crack.
Enjoy the weekend mate
Elliott made money from Rufus scheme ! the one and only person I believe
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
Disgraceful. He already got 7 and a half years & now will have to serve another 3 years if he cant cough up the money by March next year. Ludicrous sentencing.
More than people get for rape & manslaughter. Plenty of Irish got released under the GFA when serving life for murder.
Justice........pah !!
Just for clarity, the additional 3 years is a default sentence under POCA should he not come up with the available amount he's judged to have access to (which represents a payment towards the criminal benefit he gained from his offending). If there was no default sentence, no one would ever pay up what they're ordered to. It's also been ordered to be paid back to his victims, so not sure why anyone would have a problem with that?
Btw his benefit figure seems to run well into 7 figures and even if he does come up with the £300k cash now, it can be revisited should it come to light he has squirreled more away later. Or even should he buy a winning lottery ticket when he comes out of prison. Rightly so.
How did he managed to go through £8.5m? It mentions 200k on flash cars, but that's still a small portion of the money.
you don't get many flash cars for £200K .. as @golfaddick and @ShootersHillGuru have said, 7+1/2 years plus another potential 3 is tough for a financial crime i m o .. Rufus always seemed to be a diffident, unworldly character off the pitch, I wonder if he was the front man for an as yet uncovered organised gang who have got away with a large amount of the stolen cash ?
Sod giving the benefit of the doubt.
Next time you're at The Valley arrange a meeting with Elliott and get him to tell you the crack.
Enjoy the weekend mate
Elliott made money from Rufus scheme ! the one and only person I believe
I have seen a story he 'lost' around 350k, but somehow eventually came out of it all about 50k up. Of course I do not know how true this is.
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
I'd add suicide to that list. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn lives have been lost over this fraud. Getting out after 4 or 5 years is nothing in that context
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
I don’t think you need experience in the justice system to under or over estimate the impact of any crime. I had a professional involvement in the underlying case about five years ago so know quite a lot about the case. The judge was of course at liberty to give him the sentence he got. I think it’s natural for Joe Public to raise an eyebrow at the length of certain cases, when they compare them with less or more perceived heinous crimes.
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
I don’t think you need experience in the justice system to under or over estimate the impact of any crime. I had a professional involvement in the underlying case about five years ago so know quite a lot about the case. The judge was of course at liberty to give him the sentence he got. I think it’s natural for Joe Public to raise an eyebrow at the length of certain cases, when they compare them with less or more perceived heinous crimes.
Out of interest, do judges tend to give the same sort of sentences or are there perceived lenient and tough ones?
Disgraceful. He already got 7 and a half years & now will have to serve another 3 years if he cant cough up the money by March next year. Ludicrous sentencing.
More than people get for rape & manslaughter. Plenty of Irish got released under the GFA when serving life for murder.
Justice........pah !!
Just for clarity, the additional 3 years is a default sentence under POCA should he not come up with the available amount he's judged to have access to which represents a payment towards the criminal benefit he gained from his offending. If there was no default sentence, no one would ever pay up what they're ordered to. It's also been ordered to be paid back to his victims, so not sure why anyone would have a problem with that?
Btw his benefit figure seems to run well into 7 figures and even if he does come up with the £300k cash now, it can be revisited should it come to light he has squirreled it away later. Or even should he buy a winning lottery ticket when he comes out of prison. Rightly so.
Just to add to this, if you want to see cases that appear to lead to unfair sentencing outcomes, have a look at some of those serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, where people are kept in prison far beyond the tariff of any crime for which they've actually been sentenced. It's an indefinite sentence based on what you "might" do, rather than what you've actually done.
IPP was brought in in 2005, and abolished in 2012, but the abolition did not automatically retrospectively alter sentences (so some are still in prison for having committed relatively minor offences). The UN Special Rapporteur for Torture has condemned it recently.
And then, of course, there are the many notorious miscarriages of justice (some of which involved Irish people, but almost all of which, like Stefan Kiszko, involved people who were in some way vulnerable and easily scapegoated by the police and media).
The point with the Rufus situation was that he was offered, in effect, the possibility of a reduced sentence if he could make partial restitution. But he couldn't.
I'm sad for him, because I always held him in high regard as a player and feel that he deserved more recognition than he got, but...
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
I don’t think you need experience in the justice system to under or over estimate the impact of any crime. I had a professional involvement in the underlying case about five years ago so know quite a lot about the case. The judge was of course at liberty to give him the sentence he got. I think it’s natural for Joe Public to raise an eyebrow at the length of certain cases, when they compare them with less or more perceived heinous crimes.
Out of interest, do judges tend to give the same sort of sentences or are there perceived lenient and tough ones?
No idea. Judges have discretion don’t they so it’s down to the individual judge as to strength on sentence. My interest was in a civil action.
Disgraceful. He already got 7 and a half years & now will have to serve another 3 years if he cant cough up the money by March next year. Ludicrous sentencing.
More than people get for rape & manslaughter. Plenty of Irish got released under the GFA when serving life for murder.
Justice........pah !!
Jog on. Bloke's a fucking wrongun who conned people out of their life savings.
It seems obvious that the judge saw an obvious discrepancy between his fraudulent proceeds and his declared assets and bank spending. Three extra years seems light to me.
I have already touched upon this. Do we know if the sentences for each charge were to run consecutively or concurrently?
I can't remember ever seeing consecutive sentencing in this country. Does such a thing exist?
Yes. In a case I worked on many years back, the Judge clearly took against both the defendants and their barrister (a very well known KC). We were expecting, maybe a 1 year sentence on each of 5 counts but concurrent. In fact the Judge handed down 6 months custodial on each of the five counts but made them consecutive. So a total of 30 months. We were all very surprised. On appeal the total sentence was reduced but the appeal judges were careful to keep the consecutive nature of the original sentencing. So two of the five counts stayed as consecutive but three were made concurrent.
In fairness to the judge, said barrister was a deeply unpleasant little shit. He even refused to say good morning to our silk. Such incivility amongst barristers is very rare. It is after all such a small world.
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
A couple of years ago my bank account was hacked and about 3k was,stolen. Luckily for me because I had Done nothing wrong the bank refunded my money. While I was in the bank sorting it all out the bank employee told me of a retired Vicar who was scammed into transferring 30k into a so called savings plan. Because he had transferred the money himself he lost the lot. People who scam others out of large amounts of money deserve everything they get. Absolute scum.
This provides a quite brief but good explanation of the situation.
It seems Rufus took in a total of approx £15mn. But it was just a Ponzi scheme. So, according to the CoLP, some £7mn plus made it back to investors, leaving the £8mn shortfall. Of that one assumes much was lost to poor, risky financial gambles (I won't call them investments) with at least a few million making its way into his personal accounts to fund his lavish lifestyle.
I don’t think anyone is saying that he didn’t deserve time and that his crimes aren’t heinous with no doubt, numerous victims. Just that the time should fit the crime. It does seem an awful lengthy stay at his majesty’s pleasure, especially when you see instances of nonces getting a mere ticking off these days.
I think many people with limited/no experience of the criminal justice system significantly under estimate the impact of financial crime on the victim. A victim of a mugging or burglary might lose a watch or a phone, and might even get a physical injury but, generally speaking, will recover reasonably quickly and move on with their life.
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
I don’t think you need experience in the justice system to under or over estimate the impact of any crime. I had a professional involvement in the underlying case about five years ago so know quite a lot about the case. The judge was of course at liberty to give him the sentence he got. I think it’s natural for Joe Public to raise an eyebrow at the length of certain cases, when they compare them with less or more perceived heinous crimes.
Out of interest, do judges tend to give the same sort of sentences or are there perceived lenient and
Judges have leeway within the limits set by precedent and statutes when sentencing
Comments
It's Charlton - so I assume bread and bitches.
However, these have very likely been given to run concurrently not consecutively, which means he will only serve around 2.5 years or even less if early parole is granted.
There is a huge difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing.
The media will “always” give the higher consecutive sentence and “not the true” lower concurrent one as it sounds much more dramatic.
the one and only person I believe
A victim of fraud might lose everything they own causing them lifelong hardship, loss of independence, confidence, self worth, their health, relationships, etc. etc.
This is why we have sentancing guidelines and don't let the public decide on what punishment fits the crime. Rufus' crime will be right at the top for the culpablity factor and the financial assessments hence he got an entirely appropriate sentence.
Btw his benefit figure seems to run well into 7 figures and even if he does come up with the £300k cash now, it can be revisited should it come to light he has squirreled more away later. Or even should he buy a winning lottery ticket when he comes out of prison. Rightly so.
Of course I do not know how true this is.
IPP was brought in in 2005, and abolished in 2012, but the abolition did not automatically retrospectively alter sentences (so some are still in prison for having committed relatively minor offences). The UN Special Rapporteur for Torture has condemned it recently.
And then, of course, there are the many notorious miscarriages of justice (some of which involved Irish people, but almost all of which, like Stefan Kiszko, involved people who were in some way vulnerable and easily scapegoated by the police and media).
The point with the Rufus situation was that he was offered, in effect, the possibility of a reduced sentence if he could make partial restitution. But he couldn't.
I'm sad for him, because I always held him in high regard as a player and feel that he deserved more recognition than he got, but...
Do we know if the sentences for each charge were to run consecutively or concurrently?
In fairness to the judge, said barrister was a deeply unpleasant little shit. He even refused to say good morning to our silk. Such incivility amongst barristers is very rare. It is after all such a small world.
Luckily for me because I had Done nothing wrong the bank refunded my money.
While I was in the bank sorting it all out the bank employee told me of a retired Vicar who was scammed into transferring 30k into a so called savings plan.
Because he had transferred the money himself he lost the lot.
People who scam others out of large amounts of money deserve everything they get.
Absolute scum.
This provides a quite brief but good explanation of the situation.
It seems Rufus took in a total of approx £15mn. But it was just a Ponzi scheme. So, according to the CoLP, some £7mn plus made it back to investors, leaving the £8mn shortfall. Of that one assumes much was lost to poor, risky financial gambles (I won't call them investments) with at least a few million making its way into his personal accounts to fund his lavish lifestyle.