Man facing $17.5m HPE fraud case has contempt sentence cut by Court of Appeal

Re: Automatic halving of sentence

"serial entrepreneur"

That's what we call a "thieving scumbag" nowadays, is it?

Re: Automatic halving of sentence

"It's because there is no facility to extend a sentence unless another crime has been committed or new evidence received and it is returned to court."

Not entirely true.

For example, if you're foreign then at the end of your sentence you are not released while the Home Office decides whether they want to deport you. That can take them months.

Other examples anyone?

Re: Automatic halving of sentence

"It's because there is no facility to extend a sentence unless another crime has been committed or new evidence received and it is returned to court."

Fair enough, but we are talking about changing the system here so why not change that bit as well. This is a democratic problem and seems to be fairly common in different countries. How we as a society hand out punishment is important for people and thus it is a part of who we vote for and why. To have any hope of an honest democratic public debate we should work to remove anything that muddies the water. And I do think that if all sentences where the minimum you had to serve (at least within ordinary circumstances excluding pardons, reforms etc) and they could all be extended to the double of that minimum, it would be a lot easier for people to understand. The end result is the same, just the wording that is different. "Three years in prison with a maximum of six years." instead of "Six years in prison with a minimum of three years." (That kind of wording might be in a different country, but the principle stands).

Re: This used to be how commerce worked isn't it?

Once again, someone else was better at getting the deal done than HP, just like the Autonomy case. Not too smart these days at HP, it seems. Greedy for the business blinds oversight, then butt hurt when someone else takes all the profit. You couldn't make it up...

Re: This used to be how commerce worked isn't it?

Sounds to me that the guy was a hell of a sales person if he was selling servers at retail pricing. HP didn't have to cold call all the customers and probably saved millions on staff and red tape. Unless HPE actually lost money on the sales, it sounds like they screwed themselves.

Re: This used to be how commerce worked isn't it?

"According this previous El Reg article, "

Ok, that makes more sense. But that is presumably a simple case of contract law (simple case being an oxymoron).

And concealing an item that is being searched for is presumably why it's being searched for. If it wasn't being concealed there would be no need to search. That's where I've been going wrong with hide-and-seek all these years?!

Seems a bit harsh to call that contempt of court, particularly if the court managed to stuff up the warrant...

Re: This used to be how commerce worked isn't it?

> Man sings a contract with HPE

To their tune, obviously.

Re: This used to be how commerce worked isn't it?

@sal II - Given HPE aren't actually talking about a breach of contract, I suggest there was no resale restriction clause in the agreement...

Basically, HPE fell for the sales pitch, didn't do any due diligence and are now crying about how unfair it all is.

Unfortunately, HPE have deep pockets and so can pay lawyers to use the legal system to conduct a witch hunt based on a load of unsubstantiated accusations. Which given the length of time that has elapsed, I suggest HPE have no intention whatsoever to commence legal proceedings as they know they don't have a leg to stand on..

Re: confused

generally UK courts (or judges are pretty relaxed about faults in the prosecution evidence. Certainly illegally obtained evidence is quite often used in prosecutions with nary a mention.

That's because they aren't "faults" with evidence in the UK. Evidence is evidence. If anybody has material relevant to the matter then it may be produced in court either either by the defense or prosecution with no regard to the legality of how it happened to arrive before the courts.

Using it in court is however an admission of guilt of any crime committed obtaining the information and you might be sued seperately for those offenses.