ACS:Law and MediaCAT close their doors, ending filesharing claims

[zappaDPJ]

Here's a thing... (taken from the BBC report)

His barrister Paul Parker argued in Wednesday's court hearing that he should not be liable for costs.

He said that Mr Crossley's file-sharing case load had operated at a loss, with Mr Crossley claiming to have spent £750,000 on pursuing net pirates while making £300,000 from people paying fines.

How grossly incompetent can you get. It cost £750,000 to send out 10,000 scam... I'm sorry, letters of claim? How is it even possible for a solicitor to lose money? Of course it must be true or it's perjury but since when did an omission of gross incompetence present a defence against the awarding of costs

[Rik]

Never, Zap, and I don't believe him either. Of course, what he probably means is that he billed his time at an exorbitant rate, say £10k per letter?

[john]

There's an update on ACS here.

[zappaDPJ]

More bad news for Andrew Crossley.

[Steve]

Shame! 

[john]

Yet another update here.

[DorsetBoy]

So he gets away with a £1000 instead of £200,000 because he says he can't pay .......... anyone else being fined in court does not get that consideration, the fine is imposed according to the law and they have to pay in installments. 

[Rik]

Crossley is going to walk away from much of the flak because he can't pay. Personally, I'd like to see HMRC audit him, I don't believe for one moment he hasn't squirreled the money away somewhere.

[zappaDPJ]

I'd assume this was not heard in a court of law but a fine imposed by the regulatory body, the ICO? If it was a court of law ability to pay shouldn't carry any weight. It does appear to be a very strange penalty. If it was set by the ICO I don't understand why ability to pay would have an influence either.

[Rik]

It seems to have been set by the ICO.

[Technical Ben]

So he gets away with a £1000 instead of £200,000 because he says he can't pay .......... anyone else being fined in court does not get that consideration, the fine is imposed according to the law and they have to pay in installments.  

I agree, at times though it appears plea bids do sometimes allow you to get a lesser fine. IE "pay now, get 10% knocked off of the debt" or "I'll admit liability if you cut the price". However, this would easily favour the rich and guilty, as the innocent would not admit guilt, and the poor not afford any amount.

PS, at £1000, it still seems a profitable con. 

[john]

It looks like he mab be back in business

[ST Driver]

Lets hope not

[Rik]

It does make you wonder, I certainly wouldn't put him past it. If he is, let's hope the IC re-visits the fines he handed down.