General Forums => General Discussions => Topic started by: Rolandg on January 04, 2019, 11:01:21

Title: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Rolandg on January 04, 2019, 11:01:21
Now that Ms O`Reilly of EZE Groups plea has been rejected, that she was given wrong advice by some Legal Advisor, probably with the very common surname of Smith. (to retain his or her anonymity no doubt) I wonder if she will sue the said purveyor of such poor advice which assisted in enabling the EZE Group in fraudulently taking millions from desperate timeshare consumers.
My bet is that she will not sue. I also wonder if the Legal Advisor will retain the confidence of his or her current clientele once the name(s) of his or her Legal Advisory organisations are revealed by someone?
Title: Re: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Williamdobbs on January 05, 2019, 16:36:32
Other news which has just come in involves the ongoing case against Eze Groups Dominic O’Reilly and Stephanie O’Reilly at Birmingham Crown Court.

December 21st was the final day of a Newton Hearing in the case against Stephanie O’Reilly, Mr O’Reilly was not in attendance as he had earlier pleaded guilty to 27 charges of breaches of consumer legislation and aggressive selling amongst other things.

The reason for the Newton Hearing was that Miss O’Reilly had to explain why she pleaded guilty to Fraud but not as charged. The defence argued that Eze Group had employed the services of a Legal Advisor to ensure that they were compliant with UK law and that this advice was wrong which ultimately led to the mis-selling of the product.

This argument was vigorously rejected by the prosecution, who were also able to produce documentation refuting the argument.

This was accepted by the court and a date of 11 January 2019 has been set for what we believe will be sentencing. We will bring you this news as and when it happens.

If you have any comments on this or any other article, use our contact page, Inside Timeshare welcomes your comments.

Te advisors are Praetorian legal and Mr. Gary Smith
Title: Re: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Rolandg on January 05, 2019, 17:40:18
Fancy me guessing correctly that the Legal Advisors name would be Smith.

I think that each charge carries around 3 months so with the 2 earlier ones admitted by Mr O`Reilly and now this further 27 it makes 29 charges and so it seems he can look forward to at least 7 years in some overcrowded pokey.

*I note that below this intended post is a note that says    shortcuts: hit alt+s to post or alt+p to preview. Now to my mind hitting either of the boxes labelled Post or Preview seems to be an even shorter shortcut as it cuts out the need to perform two functions instead of one. But given that someone may well have 7 years to perform this function it is no big deal really. 
Taking shorter shortcut and hitting Post now! 
Title: Re: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Williamdobbs on January 06, 2019, 15:56:30
Many breaches of trading standards law are criminal offences and can be prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court. A successful prosecution may have a range of consequences, including the following:

- the trader will have a criminal record

- a punishment or sentence. Trading standards offences can usually be punished with a fine, and in many cases the amount is unlimited. For the most serious cases, imprisonment is an option, with maximum periods of up to two years for some trading standards offences. Where a business is prosecuted for fraud, theft or money laundering in addition to or instead of trading standards offences, or for offences under intellectual property law (trademarks or copyright), maximum penalties can be very high indeed (up to 14 years' imprisonment)

- an order to pay compensation to victims

- an order to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution

- a 'criminal behaviour order' restricting future conduct (for example, a ban on making contracts in consumers' homes)

- disqualification as a company director (where the offence was connected with a company) or from driving (where there is a good reason - for example, where the offence included bad driving or was facilitated by the use of a vehicle)

- confiscation of assets and money under proceeds-of-crime legislation

- forfeiture of any illegal or infringing goods and any equipment used in committing the offence
Title: Re: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Rolandg on January 07, 2019, 13:11:44
By pleading guilty to all charges it can be assumed that Mr O`Reilly has done so in order to attract a lighter sentence but the fact seems to be that he is culpable in the fraudulent activities that led to his companies allegedly taking upwards of 30 million pounds from timeshare consumers. I have calculated the best, not the worst, outcome for him. We shall have to see how it all ends as I understand the sentencing to be imminent.
Title: Re: Dead wrong? Legal Advice
Post by: Tanveer Karn on January 09, 2019, 10:04:11
Obviously, a wrong has been perpetrated and when pointed out - guilt was admitted - so naturally, any sentence imposed will be lighter, as the state will not be put to the costs of a trial. So, despite the crimes, this is a good thing.

That said and having regard for sentencing, this will take place in a Newton Trial which can be described as a trial within a trial, the purpose of which will be for the defence; to try and get the lowest sentence and of course the prosecution will try and get a fair and reasonable sentence.

A Newton hearing is adopted where the defendant pleads guilty on a factual basis different to that which appears from the prosecution's case. This was set down in R v Underwood [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 90. The key points are it is the responsibility of the Defence to take the initiative and alert the prosecution to areas of dispute.

I don’t believe that Ms O’Reilly did seriously consider any advice from Smith of Praetorian Legal as he is not mentally equipped to deal with or give legal advice. The facts are that her Father Dominic was in bed with the Smiths of Praetorian Legal and was a director of Praetorian Legal Ltd and Praetorian Legal Litigation Management Ltd.

The issue of trying to claim that the advice given was wrong would require her to believe the advice was correct when delivering her plea. As Mr Smith was the legal compliance officer and directed that function and it was that inept advice which landed her in the position she is in now – I very much doubt she did rely upon it, so the court was correct to dismiss her arguments.