ACCforum: Beggar guilty of fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Beggar guilty of fraud begging for food and shelter while on benefit

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:08 PM

Quote

Quote

Beggar guilty of fraud for begging for food and shelter while on benefit

MARTY SHARPE AND MATT STEWART
Last updated 17:03, February 21 2017


Frank Lovich was convicted by Judge Bridget Mackintosh in Hastings District Court on Monday.

A beggar has been convicted of fraud for begging for food and shelter while on a benefit.

Prolific Hastings beggar Frank Lovich is no stranger to the city's streets, or to the local court, but usually it involves low level nuisance offending. 
The 53-year-old has clocked up close to 300 such convictions dating back to 1980.
Lovich is a often seen begging in the Hastings city centre

On Monday in Hastings District Court he pleaded guilty to 16 more, including a first for him of fraud.

He was convicted under Section 15 of the Summary Offences Act, which states that offenders can be jailed for up to three months or fined up to $1000 if they solicit, gather, or collects alms, subscriptions, or contributions by means of any false pretence.


Lovich's fraud occurred on the afternoon of November 16 last year. He went to the Bay City Plaza mall in Hastings, despite having a bail condition barring him from going there.

He sat holding a sign begging for money for food and shelter and according to a police summary of facts he was purporting to be homeless.
"The defendant is paid $380 per week by WINZ and has a home in Hastings," the summary said.

Lovich managed to collect a few dollars before he was approached by a member of the public who knew his pretence to be false.
He became abusive and stormed off. Police found him in the city centre a short time later and arrested him after a short struggle.

Lovich admitted the facts and said WINZ did not give him enough money.
His other offending included trespassing on another mall, wilful damage, resisting arrest, disorderly behaviour and committing an indecent act with the intention to offend. The last occurred in a police cell after he had jammed the toilet and flooded the cell.

Lovich appeared via video link from Hawke's Bay Prison. His lawyer Anthony Willis told judge Bridget Mackintosh Lovich would like a sentencing indication and sought one of four months prison, adding that he had effectively served it as he has been in custody for the past three.

The judge said that was too light a sentence for the offending and said nine months was more appropriate. Lovich accepted that and pleaded guilty. The judge ordered a pre-sentence report and told him to reappear for sentence in April.
Sergeant Cameron Donnison said Lovich had a long history of offending. Police were not about to start charging all beggars with fraud, and Lovich was a special case that required this approach.

A Ministry of Social Development spokesman said the issue of begging on streets was led by local councils.

"We endeavour to ascertain a client's financial position as we assess what assistance we can provide them. We rely on clients to provide an honest and full account of their current financial position, including any current sources of income," he said.

Lawmakers and councils around the country grapple with the issue of begging and how to deal with it. 
Managing director of Wellington's First Retail Group, Chris Wilkinson, said recent coverage of begging had socialised the issue but solutions needed to be found through councils and social agencies rather than punishments.

Wilkinson said Wellington was leading the way in tackling begging, which was often clouded by drug and alcohol dependency.
The group supported initiatives like communal 'wet houses' for homeless alcoholics and drug addicts as proposed by Wellington City Council as well as other strategies underway to tackle the problem.
Director of Wellington's Downtown Community Ministry, Stephanie McIntyre, said begging was a complex phenomenon.

The one-on-one act of begging and receiving was not the most effective way to deal with the problem.
"The best thing is to support and encourage people to liaise with agencies - then we can get to the bottom of this complex situation."
But the big issue confronting social agencies was a huge under-supply of affordable housing.
"It's these sorts of phenomena that are driving begging," McIntyre said. 
 - Stuff

http://www.stuff.co....hile-on-benefit


I am not sure how *contributions* are defined by the courts ...but MSD do have a comprehensive lists which deal with non-monetary items & gifts etc Please be aware that some material likely needs to be clarified further with casemanagers

eg the link Trusts takes to the following information
Map is a direct copy of the internal policy resource that Ministry of Social Development staff use to make sure that clients receive their full and correct entitlement.
However, some of the links in Map direct staff to the procedures that they need to follow. These procedures, which are not part of Map, are only available internally on our intranet.



0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:50 AM

Obviously this is not a case of benefit for but rather ordinary fraud..
Begging on the streets claiming poverty when in fact the person is not in a condition of poverty because they are in receipt of benefit most certainly is fraud as the beggar is misrepresenting themselves. That situation is very straightforward and easily understood.
0

#3 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10725
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 February 2017 - 07:38 AM

So was yours

You werent working...

Bankrupcy = no earnings...

Therefore no entitlement....
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:45 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 22 February 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

So was yours

You werent working...

Bankrupcy = no earnings...

Therefore no entitlement....


Your are all ass about face.. Get your facts right or I'll do you in court you chump
0

#5 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10725
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 22 February 2017 - 09:18 AM

No you wont.........

You were convicted fair and square.....

All mouth and bluster....

No dermot to help you out this time
0

#6 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 23 February 2017 - 05:56 PM

Quote

Quote

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 February 2017 - 04:50 AM, said:

Obviously this is not a case of benefit for [sic] but rather ordinary fraud..
Begging on the streets claiming poverty when in fact the person is not in a condition of poverty because they are in receipt of benefit most certainly is fraud as the beggar is misrepresenting themselves. That situation is very straightforward and easily understood.


hhhhmmmm I would also say that it is probably much easier for the courts to obtain this type of conviction .... and there may be more cases in future etc etc

Unfortunately so much fraud overt and covert can occur these days IMHO because casemanagers still mainly rely on their claimants being honest and of course many bad sorts exploit these loopholes by pretending they are ignorant eg ACC and WINZ beneficiaries not declaring many different types of income or activities and extra stuff like gifts & trips overseas etc etc





Quote

Police: Beggars not being targeted
12:49 PM Wednesday Feb 22, 2017

Police say it's not unusual for them to prosecute beggars who are asking for money but don't need it.

The comment comes after a Hastings beggar was convicted of fraud for begging for food and shelter - while on a benefit and living in a house.

Frank Lovich was charged with 16 nuisance offences, including fraud, after a member of the public, who knew his true background, reported him to police.
Police say the prolific beggar was pretending to be homeless, while sitting in the Bay City Plaza mall in Hastings with a sign begging for money for food and shelter.
They say he was receiving $380 a week from Work and Income and has a home in Hastings.

A police spokeswoman says this case is not a reflection of a targeted campaign against begging.

The Ministry of Social Development says it relies on beneficiaries to be honest when they're earning a side income from begging.

A representative for the Ministry says it aims to provide people with the assistance they require, based on their financial position.

But the ministry says it also relies on clients to be honest about their income, including income from legal or illegal begging.

Lovich's lawyer, Antony Willis, says it would be unfair to Lovich to comment until he is sentenced in April.
- Newstalk ZB
http://www.nzherald....jectid=11805423




ATM I am uncertain if all of these fraudsters are managed within a special unit and have their benefit claims and daily activities regularly examined or not? IMHO a dedicated section with thorough annual reviews should act as a deterrant ... and perhaps having a proactive approach may help minimise the negative views that can be faced by many innocent beneficiaries etc etc


Quote

Transport Ministry must come clean on Joanne Harrison swindling taxpayers

JOHN WEEKES
Last updated 11:53, February 22 2017

OPINION: Con artists can exert a strange charm and likeability.

There's something about the shamelessness, the florid and extravagant promises and excuses they make, the colourful histories they contrive.
By many accounts the Ministry of Transport's disgraced ex-staffer Joanne Harrison matched the profile of many charlatans we've covered in the past year or so

Whether they're witchdoctors from India conning Karori housewives, or mums from Porirua defrauding Victoria University, the common thread linking their self-serving deceptions is a callous disregard for everyone but themselves.

Don't be fooled, like I was at the sentencing of Vic Uni fraudster Rebekah Procter, into feeling sorry for them.

Good liars and good thieves have no trouble turning on fake tears.

And don't be fooled into feeling sorry for the civil service bosses, and ministries, like the Ministry of Transport, who might feel embarrassed about fraud like that of Harrison. 

Judge Sanjay Patel didn't buy the excuses this week, and made it clear Harrison's offending was calculated, premeditated, and self-serving. 
Hopefully, he has made an example of her, too.

Taxpayers can do without the likes of Harrison.

Legally, there was much about Harrison we couldn't report, as her case dragged on through the courts for months.
There's still plenty the ministry won't say publicly about Harrison.

In July last year, a few  phone calls and background checks revealed that many people had concerns about Harrison.
This wasn't stellar investigative work. It was average. Harrison left digital footprints that anyone with access to Google could have found.

This wasn't a minor character defect, a case of unpaid library fines, or a dispute involving a week's rent at a student hostel. This was a pattern of seriously concerning behaviour, over decades.

How the ministry was so clueless when it hired her is a question that remains unanswered.
The ministry may not be entirely to blame - but its failure to already release documents relevant to Harrison, which it promised to do on sentencing, suggests either incompetence or a disregard for transparency.

The common excuse when employees commit fraud is that fraudsters are "sophisticated". We know Harrison went by her maiden name Sidebottom, and the married surname, Sharp. Hardly sophisticated.

She was given enough power to be in a position to make invoices she used to siphon public money into her own accounts.

Government ministries, entrusted with taxpayer money, need to be more sophisticated.
And when they hire a charlatan like Harrison, they need to come clean and they need to do that by releasing documents relevant to her case.
 - Stuff

http://www.stuff.co....dling-taxpayers





0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 February 2017 - 04:45 AM

The fraud was not against WINZ but against the givers
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 February 2017 - 06:26 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 22 February 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

No you wont.........

You were convicted fair and square.....

All mouth and bluster....

No dermot to help you out this time


You are off topic!

Who the hell is dermot when he is at home?
0

#9 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6394
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 February 2017 - 08:44 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 February 2017 - 04:50 AM, said:

Obviously this is not a case of benefit for but rather ordinary fraud..
Begging on the streets claiming poverty when in fact the person is not in a condition of poverty because they are in receipt of benefit most certainly is fraud as the beggar is misrepresenting themselves. That situation is very straightforward and easily understood.


Alan Thomas The same as you taking a roof to cover your and partners head as residential from the Company. If you didn't pay it back from drawings from your company for yourself then it is fraud.

I don't often agree with your thoughts, but this time I do.

Mini
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6394
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:13 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

The fraud was not against WINZ but against the givers


Alan thomas

It was both, firstly her lied to the givers, and then he didn't tell WINZ he had made the money.

How you can not see that when you are are supposed to be a sharp businessman is beyond me.

We all know that living on a benefit, with a house to upkeep, ie mortgage and matainence, is not easy. Some people do not even know they can get assistance with the rental/mortgage aspect, but the amount he was paid sounds reasonable.

Disregarding that as a reason, he did it stating that he didn't have a roof over his head, and he needed food, and other misleading signs. And he obviously didn't tell WINZ he was collecting money from people by begging, as though they were giving him nothing.

I believe that they cant cope because they have a habit of booze, drugs or even the pokies. That is why they then have to be homeless or without food. When you are on benefit you cannot expect WINZ to pay for your fags if you smoke. (Herein lies the problem of not being able to make ends meet.) You cant even have a social life.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:14 AM

View PostMINI, on 24 February 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Alan Thomas The same as you taking a roof to cover your and partners head as residential from the Company. If you didn't pay it back from drawings from your company for yourself then it is fraud.

I don't often agree with your thoughts, but this time I do.

Mini


What on earth are you rabbiting on about now.
I have never received any form of accommodation from my old companies.
Quiet the opposite. I paid the companies office rent, so my partner could start her company, of which I was a financial partner only.
Where did you get the idea that I was benefiting from owning a company?

So what is it that you are claiming to agree with?
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:21 AM

View PostMINI, on 24 February 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

Alan thomas

It was both, firstly her lied to the givers, and then he didn't tell WINZ he had made the money.

How you can not see that when you are are supposed to be a sharp businessman is beyond me.

We all know that living on a benefit, with a house to upkeep, ie mortgage and matainence, is not easy. Some people do not even know they can get assistance with the rental/mortgage aspect, but the amount he was paid sounds reasonable.

Disregarding that as a reason, he did it stating that he didn't have a roof over his head, and he needed food, and other misleading signs. And he obviously didn't tell WINZ he was collecting money from people by begging, as though they were giving him nothing.

I believe that they cant cope because they have a habit of booze, drugs or even the pokies. That is why they then have to be homeless or without food. When you are on benefit you cannot expect WINZ to pay for your fags if you smoke. (Herein lies the problem of not being able to make ends meet.) You cant even have a social life.

Mini


How is a gift of money of interest to WINZ?
Is "I believe that they cant cope because they have a habit of booze, drugs or even the pokies" a guess? or do you have speace IRD magic power girl powers?

How do you know if there are medical cost that WINZ won't pay such as when WNIZ won't pat because ACC are required to pay such as in the Johnny Manu case who also could not afford a social life?
0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6394
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:24 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

What on earth are you rabbiting on about now.
I have never received any form of accommodation from my old companies.
Quiet the opposite. I paid the companies office rent, so my partner could start her company, of which I was a financial partner only.
Where did you get the idea that I was benefiting from owning a company?

So what is it that you are claiming to agree with?


All your companies were in your name......don't lie and don't threaten Court when you know you could not stand up to a prober audit./investigation.

Even in the last one Butler said you had too much to hide to be heard in defence. So do not threaten people, they may just decide to go you in return. I certainly would.

Footprints everywhere............that is you old boy and the Judge in both instances saw them.

Mini
0

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6394
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:33 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

How is a gift of money of interest to WINZ?
Is "I believe that they cant cope because they have a habit of booze, drugs or even the pokies" a guess? or do you have speace IRD magic power girl powers?

How do you know if there are medical cost that WINZ won't pay such as when WNIZ won't pat because ACC are required to pay such as in the Johnny Manu case who also could not afford a social life?


Alan Thomas

Medical costs are in the disability allowance. Simple.

ACC pay IA. Again simple.

You tend to forget I have been there, done that and held onto my house. Only just, but it is the truth.

You are going from the sublime to the ridiculous when you mention you fav. friend. I am not making excuses for the likes of them and neither should you.

Another bit for the powers that be, just to show what we who stay here have to put up with.

Mini
0

#15 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:58 AM

Quote

Quote

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 February 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

How is a gift of money of interest to WINZ?
Is "I believe that they cant cope because they have a habit of booze, drugs or even the pokies" a guess? or do you have speace IRD magic power girl powers?

How do you know if there are medical cost that WINZ won't pay such as when WNIZ won't pat because ACC are required to pay such as in the Johnny Manu case who also could not afford a social life?



I am not sure if this is meant to be addressed to me Alan :unsure:

WINZ beneficiaries are expected to declare *gifts* of either money or other non-monetary assistance such as regular food parcels and national or international trips to their casemanager so that they can all be considered in regards to ongoing their benefit entitlements.

Many benefits such as Temporary Assistance or Special Benefit and Accomodation Supplements can all be reduced because of *gifts* for example ... and anything which looks to be more regular legal or illegal begging, food, board or bill help may also be deducted from the weekly Invalids entitlement etc etc.

Likewise with any assistance for medical costs - the same expectation is that claimants are honest with their casemanagers if they might obtain any medical services as this too can influence various entitlements such as Disability Allowance etc

Another thing which one must remember is that while there may be assistance available from WINZ for emergency help with food... this has limits ..and then once exhausted the claimant can take a letter to the local charity ..who may then offer some parcels ...but again this is limited and often becomes conditional upon the claimant undertaking budget advisement etc

As you are near to pension age now Alan there may be some different rules and allowances which can be considered by casemanagers ... but I would highly doubt any long term winz beneficiary will have significant assets for means testing etc There may be a few members who are able to provide more up to date information if they are entitled to Superannuation & some ACC monies simultaneously FYI ...



I am not sure why you are bringing up a violent killer in regards to this topic. From all the reports that I have seen Johnny Manu was not entitled to any financial assistance from ACC at the time he murdered a casemanager Alan ...& AFAIK likewise he was also obtaining ALL of his WINZ entitlements!!


0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users