back to article Pirate-bothering ACS:Law lawyer goes bankrupt

Andrew Crossley, the man/lawyer behind file-sharer-botherers ACS:Law, has been declared bankrupt. Crossley's last known address according to the High Court is worth in the region of £700,000, says Zoopla - so let's hope he's kept his hands on that. London's High Court of Justice declared Crossley bankrupt on 20 May 2011. This …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Holmes

@AC

Really?

a) Different in quantity? Do you have any evidence that the average freetard post torrents/internet has more content (that they would otherwise buy) pirated compared to pre torrents/internet. I would suspect not.

b) Better quality? Well yes, pirated stuff is better quality than it used to be, but so is paid stuff. Better technology is better I suppose, doesn't really make pirating any worse than it used to be. (and I would suggest the vast majority of pirated songs / movies etc are piss poor quality anyway)

c) Pish, Albums are dead anyway. Yes it is easier to get (pirated and to a lesser extent legal) movies and TV shows now (I don't have to wait for them to be shown on BBC/ITV anymore) but again this is better technology being better, not really making the modern 'home taping' any worse than it used to be.

But you are right Crossley's actions don't really have much effect on the morality of pirating content.

0
0

At last +1

Being a former Tape op then Mastering engineer back when there was a music industry I couldnt agree more.

They are getting all pissy cause the master tapes are out there while for years you lapped up their x6 speed pre-recorded cassettes @ premium prices by the bucketload while they sat in their A&R offices snorting the GDP of bolivia.

If you buy into this entertainment industry woe is I then your more than a mug than they are.

Mines on PCM-1630 U-Matic tape

0
0
Thumb Up

It's a bit more inconvenient

... than your train being late, isn't it?

Lest we forget, Mr Crossley's downfall was as much due to his own ineptitude as to his work. His site was hacked once, and the subsequent restore of his site was how his e-mails leaked out.

He's not a martyr to pikey freetards dragging him down - he's a lawyer who couldn't keep confidential information safe. If he hadn't had the initial attack, he would be on 'Watchdog' by now, having to defend his work. The hacking was just a catalyst.

1
1
Bronze badge

That's not the main problem

His main problem is that his client did not own the copyright to the works he alleged were infringed, which means he has no more right to seek damages for their infringement than I do.

6
0
Thumb Up

Cumuppance

How does it go....

Pay me £500 for the trouble you caused me or I'll take you to court.

1
0
Silver badge

I think

that ACS:Law £200,000 fine was against a limited company. If that was the case, then UK law says that he *personally* is not liable for the company losses unless he was a director, and then only if he was negligently running the company (and although he was a con artist, this does not amount to negligence in UK corporate law).

This article says that he has been declared *personally* bankrupt, so the two things are not necessarily linked.

When it comes to personal property, as long as the money used to buy it was extracted from the company in a legal manner, then there ain't much that can be done to link the company losses against him personally. That is what a limited company is all about.

Of course, he could have been stupid, and set it up as a partnership (trading, not legal - although who with is a moot point) or as a sole trader, at which point he would be liable. But he wouldn't be that stu..... Oh, wait. Maybe he would.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

...wrongly

If you had bothered to read any of the previous stuff, it was established that he was running ACS:Law as a sole trader. He didn't have any other choice as solicitors can't have limited liability. If the ICO believed he was bankrupt then they wouldn't have got their £200K but would have a chance of recovering £1K as a nominal act.

0
0

...more wrongly

And if you'd read the previous stuff or done a little research you'd know that solicitors can be limited liability - thats why so many solicitors firms end with LLP which stands for Limited Liability Partnership.

More details at the link below :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Partnerships_Act_2000

0
0
FAIL

Ahem

"Section 2(1)(a) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 requires that there must be at least two members to incorporate an LLP. The members could be, for example, an individual solicitor and a recognised body. The Solicitors Regulation Authority will not recognise an LLP with only one member."

Piece of advice. Wiki is not always correct and does not always give you the complete picture. When lambasing someone for not doing research, doing a bit of research beyond Wiki is usually a good idea.

0
0
Bronze badge

... but as two wrongs do make a right here

He could have been limited liability if he wanted to, but he wasn't. So he is personally liable.

Correct answer, wrong reasons.

0
0
Thumb Up

Hows that coffee queue now Andrew?

I wouldnt normally point and laugh but fuck me this character deserves it in spades.

3
0
MJI
Silver badge
Pint

What good news

I hope he ends up on the street.

Pint time

3
0
Unhappy

"This will be automatically discharged in one year."

Then he'll be off on his next clever enterprise the leeching asshole. Where's the asshole icon anyway?

2
0

Where is Anon when you need them?

Can't they hack his laptop then upload a snotload of MP3s and pirated movies and then turn him in!

Serves this piece of dog dropping right!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

civil/criminal

Do you mean "charges" and do you mean "conviction"?

0
0
Pirate

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke.

<body/>

1
0
Stop

bankrupt? I don't think so...

currently I am working and living in Africa, and I saw few of those "bankrupt" officials and business people. They take the money and never pay it back, then when you take them to court, they are suddenly bankrupt! Or, in the case of officials, they never owned the money in the first place, the money were a donation to a not for profit charity that is ran by their wives, and this charity only looks after the house hold!

you still see them living in there big houses and driving nice cars..... but they suddenly do not _own_ any of them! All those items are owned by their wives, brothers, sisters and/or uncles and aunties. The person him/herself no longer own anything except the cloth on their backs, legally they are free loading on the property of their relatives! They just make sure that their relatives have signed an "I owe you" document before giving them the property.

one thing that came up in Kenya few years ago to address this "sudden bankrupt" problem that many local banks were facing. There is an option in the Kenyan law that allow you to send a person to jail if they can't pay you. I don't know how it is working out for them, but you really need something in the law to address those "sudden bankrupt, yet living a rich life" people!

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Suffer in ya jocks!

Yay!

0
1
Anonymous Coward

he's so slimey*

we'll probably discover that the house etc is all in his wife's name or something (with the transfer 3 days before the declaration)

How can we check that?

Also, I can't think of anything worse than my hard earned taxes going to support him, can we vote on some kind of deportation or something?

*allegedly

1
0
Anonymous Coward

How does law work?

"Crossley's last known address [...] is worth in the region of £700,000 [...He was fined] £200,000 last month [...] This was cut to just £1,000 due to his reduced circumstances."

I have to admit that I know little about laws, and when I read stuff like that, it only gets me more puzzled. How the heck does that work? Does that mean that if I ever get fined, I just have to capitalise all my money and I won't have to pay anything?

0
0

Con artists don''t deserve to prosper anymore than pirates

'so let's hope he's kept his hands on that.', NO! lets hope he is such a poor Solicitor he has lost his house as well, not because I support file sharers but because this man was just as much a freeloader as them. He saw a route to a quick buck and without irrefutable proof decided to blackmail people he thought were pirating software or media. His sole interest was in his enrichment he wasn't an upholder of the law merely a cheap Con-man and in my book he deserves whatever happens to him.

Also I notice a considerable number of posts supporting his original position, I would love to see an analysis of the posters and their families and colleagues computers as regards their software legality.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Funny...

He never considered anybody elses reduced circumstances when he was threatening them

3
0
Pint

Bankruptcy

Looking at the bankruptcy documents it appears that it was forced by HMRC.

Now there is an organisation you don't want after you.

I would suspect that the moving of assets to a third person in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings is looken on very dimly and may even be a criminal offense when the person you are attempting to defraud is the Government.

0
0

Probably not broke but still bad

Although I don't doubt for a moment that Andrew Crossley is not bankrupt in the sense that most people would mean (ie assets he controls < liabilities) all of this will have been a chastening and humiliating experience.

Two years ago he was riding a wave, boasting about how much he was earning. Now he is a declared bankrupt who will almost certainly not be permitted to practise again by the SRA. In addition he how has a wide reputation for being a worthless piece of crap, has been lambasted by the courts and laughed at by the likes of us. So I don't think it has turned out too badly.

PS Can we refrain from calling people cunts please? I am perfectly happy with swearing but as someone who is generally rather fond of women and their bits, I regard this as offensive in any event but even more so if the word is used to describe the lowest of the low (ie Andrew Crossley).

0
0

Plenty of time to que for a coffee and catch a train now eh?

Yeah cunt's are useful,crossley isn't except maybe as a punchbag,I read some of those e-mail's and that house has a massive rear garden to it but there was some shared access to part of it ,which that selfish twat didn't like and wanted sole access, the fucker was looking at big houses and flash cars in the infancy of ACSLAW he was a shark I hope some of those he robbed /harassed find him That would be interesting to watch when they demand a refund

0
0

Send him down the backsteps

He should be in prison, the file sharers may have broken a civil law, but crossley in my book is guilty of of several criminal offences inc Freud , i bet he wouldn't survive long in there

0
0
Happy

Crossley got a small measure of what he deserved

He should now be publicly buggered with a giant saltpetre prick.

0
0

Stupid

He deserved to go bankrupt for being so stupid

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017