Fraudulent Lottery Win

B

BensGrandad

New member

Jul 13, 2003

72,015

Haywards Heath

• Dec 17, 2016

• #1

A lot of publicity about Camelot paying out on an obviously altered ticket why didnt they realise it was a fake claim and altered ticket. I thought that every ticket purchased was logged on the computer in which case they should have known immediately and not paid out.

 

A

ArfurW8

Active member

May 22, 2009

725

Fort Neef

• Dec 17, 2016

• #2

Inside job, the fraudster had info from a Camelot employee.

 

B

BensGrandad

New member

Jul 13, 2003

72,015

Haywards Heath

• Dec 18, 2016

• Thread starter
• #3

ArfurW8 said:

Inside job, the fraudster had info from a Camelot employee.

Click to expand...

Even so the system should have shown the ticket was a fraud before they paid out £2.5m as they surely have more than 1 check before paying out.

 

S

scousefan

Well-known member

Apr 26, 2009

1,242

Liverpool

• Dec 18, 2016

• #4

This is a really strange story. How is there enough evidence to fine Camelot for paying out wrongly, yet not enough evidence to prosecute and get the money back?

 

happypig

Staring at the rude boys

May 23, 2009

7,956

Eastbourne

• Dec 18, 2016

• #5

scousefan said:

This is a really strange story. How is there enough evidence to fine Camelot for paying out wrongly, yet not enough evidence to prosecute and get the money back?

Click to expand...

"Burden of proof". To convict in criminal proceedings the case has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" ("he probably did it" isn't good enough, you have to be sure). To this end, the CPS has to be confident that it can prove its case thusly.
The Gambling Commission's standard of proof is "more likely than not", the same as in civil cases.
So it's possible to pass one threshold but not the other.

 

drew

Drew

Oct 3, 2006

23,043

Burgess Hill

• Dec 18, 2016

• #6

happypig said:

"Burden of proof". To convict in criminal proceedings the case has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" ("he probably did it" isn't good enough, you have to be sure). To this end, the CPS has to be confident that it can prove its case thusly.
The Gambling Commission's standard of proof is "more likely than not", the same as in civil cases.
So it's possible to pass one threshold but not the other.

Click to expand...

Would think that Camelot could take out a civil actions against the alleged fraudster.