Mum of 4 jailed for stealing €100k from the social

gordongekko

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/motheroffour-jailed-for-stealing-around-100k-in-fraudulent-social-welfare-payments-36530689.html

She gave up the job now and is paying back €25 a week. It'll take her 4000 weeks to pay us back out of the money we give her for free

hairyslug

Is there no cross reference between depts and pps numbers

Boom_Bap

hairyslug wrote: »

Is there no cross reference between depts and pps numbers

She had 2 pps numbers, at different addresses. She found a loophole by the sounds of thangs.

rgodard80a

Probably a mum of 4 grown-up children if she's 61 years old.

I reckon take the house off her, sell it to pay back.
She can rent from now on.

For Forks Sake

gordongekko wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/motheroffour-jailed-for-stealing-around-100k-in-fraudulent-social-welfare-payments-36530689.html

She gave up the job now and is paying back €25 a week. It'll take her 4000 weeks to pay us back out of the money we give her for free

She'll still have it repaid before Mick Wallace does.

kneemos

Twenty five quid a week for eight years is a hundred grand!
Who knew?

splinter65

Boom_Bap wrote: »

She had 2 pps numbers, at different addresses. She found a loophole by the sounds of thangs.

Glad to see the judge ignoring her sob story.
Wait now for the lefties to come along with the “what about the bankers” nonsense.
€20 billion+ a year on SW. If cretins like this didn’t steal double what their entitled too maybe there’d be more for carers and disabled people.
Nothing to do with bankers.

dinneenp

Her lawyers told Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that she had used the money to “pay her mortgage, keep a roof over her head and look after her children

So what? She was still stealing, as someone said should be made sell the house.

El Weirdo

splinter65 wrote: »

Wait now for the lefties to come along with the “what about the bankers” nonsense.

Pretty sure this isn't going to happen.

splinter65

rgodard80a wrote: »

Probably a mum of 4 grown-up children if she's 61 years old.

I reckon take the house off her, sell it to pay back.
She can rent from now on.

Please don’t. She’ll be on the front of the Herald crying in her hotel bedroom in The Gresham being comforted by Richard Boyd “magic money tree” Barrett.

HONKEY TONK

10 months lol.

She won't be going to prison for even a week let alone 10 months.

Is this in the defence rule book?

chronic coeliac, depression, anxiety, separated, extremely remorseful, married a chronic alcoholic bla bla bla.

splinter65

El Weirdo wrote: »

Pretty sure this isn't going to happen.

Someone’s here’s already said she’ll have paid her debt before M Wallace pays his.

RobbieTheRobber

The absolutely not an identity card - public services card - helped verify her true identity it seems.

splinter65

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The absolutely not an identity card - public services card - helped verify her true identity it seems.

But we must resist the PSC because nobody needs to know my business and I must be allowed to rob from my fellow citizens if I see fit.

Your Face

Outrage porn for the the impotently angry.

Red_Wake

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The absolutely not an identity card - public services card - helped verify her true identity it seems.

Long may it reign.

RobbieTheRobber

Red_Wake wrote: »

Long may it reign.

Yeah, King Public Services Card, has a nice ring to it.

Skylinehead

kneemos wrote: »

Twenty five quid a week for eight years is a hundred grand!
Who knew?

It's 10 grand...

gordongekko

kneemos wrote: »

Twenty five quid a week for eight years is a hundred grand!
Who knew?

Only people who are terrible at maths

suicide_circus

Your Face wrote: »

Outrage porn for the the impotently angry.

Does that make you the kleenex?

Odhinn

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

10 months lol.

She won't be going to prison for even a week let alone 10 months.

Is this in the defence rule book?

chronic coeliac, depression, anxiety, separated, extremely remorseful, married a chronic alcoholic bla bla bla.

So do we sentence people regardless of circumstance?

wexie

Skylinehead wrote: »

It's 10 grand...

Which means to pay back the total this 'lady' would have to be paying for the next 80 ears....

Wouldn't mind an arrangement like that for my mortgage

wexie

Odhinn wrote: »

So do we sentence people regardless of circumstance?

Sometimes it seems so, other times not so much. Finding it hard to tell really.
Not that I think any of her issues are a valid excuse for 100K fraud....having said that I think there are a lot of people out there who seem to have got a lot more leniency and are far more deserving of jailtime

RoboRat

Odhinn wrote: »

So do we sentence people regardless of circumstance?

You do the crime, you do the time. There are always alternatives.

Odhinn

Your Face wrote: »

Outrage porn for the the impotently angry.

As this is now the main story on the indo web page, I'd have to agree.

Cool_CM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The absolutely not an identity card - public services card - helped verify her true identity it seems.

Excellent stuff! I am in favour of this.

SEPT 23 1989

her second mistake was having no previous convictions

seamus

Boom_Bap wrote: »

She had 2 pps numbers, at different addresses. She found a loophole by the sounds of thangs.

Married women used to not be issued PPSN/PRSI numbers.

Then things were changed so that they used their husband's number with a "W" on the end for "Wife". That sounds like a joke, but it's not.

Then they realised that married women are not chattel, and started just giving everyone their own PPSN. Married women however can continue to use their slave PPSN until the husband dies or they separate.

I would suspect that this individual continued to use her married PPSN and also applied for a personal PPSN.

Zero sympathy for her sob stories about keeping a roof over their head and "everyone else is doing it". She had to go to significant effort to carry out this fraud, it's not something that happened by accident or circumstance, and she knew damn well that it was fraud, hence the second address.

BattleCorp

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The absolutely not an identity card - public services card - helped verify her true identity it seems.

I've absolutely no problem with an identity card. If it helps cut out social welfare fraud, then great.

I wouldn't be in favour of requiring someone to carry it at all times, but if you want to access government services, then I've no problem with requiring it then.

professore

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

10 months lol.

She won't be going to prison for even a week let alone 10 months.

Is this in the defence rule book?

chronic coeliac, depression, anxiety, separated, extremely remorseful, married a chronic alcoholic bla bla bla.

What's a chronic coeliac? Pretty sure being a coeliac is chronic by definition, living with two of them as I do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lorcand1990

"Redmond is no longer working and receives €191 a week in social payments"

Why is she still entitled to social welfare!?

BattleCorp

lorcand1990 wrote: »

"Redmond is no longer working and receives €191 a week in social payments"

Why is she still entitled to social welfare!?

Unfortunately we aren't allowed to let people starve, no matter what crimes they have committed.

Odhinn

RoboRat wrote: »

You do the crime, you do the time. There are always alternatives.

And it seems that she would have been better off taking them all round. It's hard to hate somebody who seems to have fucked up, probably under a great deal of stress.

wexie wrote: »

Sometimes it seems so, other times not so much. Finding it hard to tell really.
Not that I think any of her issues are a valid excuse for 100K fraud....having said that I think there are a lot of people out there who seem to have got a lot more leniency and are far more deserving of jailtime

It's just that there are indeed far more worthy targets for ire than this one. She isn't exactly making herself one of the jet set

Odhinn

lorcand1990 wrote: »

"Redmond is no longer working and receives €191 a week in social payments"

Why is she still entitled to social welfare!?

Because we discovered that allowing people to starve leads to desperation and vast amounts of horrific crime.

BattleCorp

Odhinn wrote: »

And it seems that she would have been better off taking them all round. It's hard to hate somebody who seems to have fucked up, probably under a great deal of stress.



It's just that there are indeed far more worthy targets for ire than this one. She isn't exactly making herself one of the jet set

It doesn't matter what she used the money for. She still stole €100,000.

And saying this woman fcuked up, it wasn't a once-off. She continued to fcuk up for many years.

Sorry but but I've no sympathy for her.

gordongekko

Odhinn wrote: »

It's just that there are indeed far more worthy targets for ire than this one. She isn't exactly making herself one of the jet set

Well we can only believe what she says but she is a convicted fraudster so she isn't exactly a person who's word you can trust.

Sure stop

There's people who defend anything from a certain set.

lorcand1990

BattleCorp wrote: »

Unfortunately we aren't allowed to let people starve, no matter what crimes they have committed.

What I was trying to say is that I thought if you were caught fraudulently conning the social welfare system you weren't allowed access social welfare until your debt was repaid?

Fr_Dougal

A lien should be made against her house, the balance of the money owed paid off with the profits of the sale of the house when she dies.

seamus

lorcand1990 wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that I thought if you were caught fraudulently conning the social welfare system you weren't allowed access social welfare until your debt was repaid?

No, that doesn't really make any sense.

Most people who pull of SW fraud aren't multi millionaires storing up their ill-gotten gains in an offshore bank account.

Practically all of them won't have a bean to their name, and won't have a job or will have a very low-paying job.

So cutting off their social welfare payments until they pay back what they stole is like standing on someone's head while they're drowning.

BattleCorp

lorcand1990 wrote: »

What I was trying to say is that I thought if you were caught fraudulently conning the social welfare system you weren't allowed access social welfare until your debt was repaid?

I do see your point but if she has no job, and no social welfare, what does she live on?

And aside from what she lives on, how is she ever expected to pay it back if she has no job or social welfare?

Ash.J.Williams

splinter65 wrote: »

Someone’s here’s already said she’ll have paid her debt before M Wallace pays his.

is that not 100% unrelated to what you said though?

Odhinn

gordongekko wrote: »

Well we can only believe what she says but she is a convicted fraudster so she isn't exactly a person who's word you can trust.

Well the court did and I doubt they did it on trust.

I'm not saying she shouldn't do time, because she ripped them off for years, but she's hardly worth getting out the torches and pitchforks for.

wexie

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

A lien should be made against her house, the balance of the money owed paid off with the profits of the sale of the house when she dies.

Which would be a much more sensible solution than allowing her to pay 25 a week in the vague hope that she may live till 138....

valoren

10 months in jail, her reputation, and by extension probably that of her family destroyed.
Seems like a fair punishment. Sends a clear message to dole fraudsters.

exaisle

wexie wrote: »

Which would be a much more sensible solution than allowing her to pay 25 a week in the vague hope that she may live till 138....

The Social Welfare will claim the balance from her estate. They do it fairly routinely.

BattleCorp

exaisle wrote: »

The Social Welfare will claim the balance from her estate. They do it fairly routinely.

Supposing she sells her house and has no assets upon death, it would be pretty hard to claim the balance in that case.

Kristopherus

BattleCorp wrote: »

Supposing she sells her house and has no assets upon death, it would be pretty hard to claim the balance in that case.

Welfare will have put a lien in place well before that. She also won't be getting any payment from them while she's on holidays.

Gatling

All of these cases should be passed on to CAB to recover the money this lark of €20 pw is pathetic

Randle P. McMurphy

I'll have to stop reading boards. It's depresssing to see so many pious superior cnuts wielding their virtual pitchforks in these type of threads. Makes me sick to the stomach.