Merged Juliet D'Souza -London "shaman" gets 10 years in jail

[hmmm...]

This woman was operating as a "shaman" and healer in Hampstead, North London for over 10 years. It's quite a wealthy area and she managed to scam over £1 million (1.7m US) from people by pretending to be able to fix their job/relationship/whatever. She completely ruined the lives of several people.

Absolutely staggering how trusting people can be, no matter what social strata they are from. Part of her spiel was about going to Suriname to bury things under a tree in the rainforest (!)

Fortunately she will be weaving her magic from behind bars for the next 10 years.

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/court-crime/juliette_d_souza_found_guilty_of_1million_shaman_faith_healing_fraud_1_3621364

 

[Octavo]

This woman was operating as a "shaman" and healer in Hampstead, North London for over 10 years. It's quite a wealthy area and she managed to scam over £1 million (1.7m US) from people by pretending to be able to fix their job/relationship/whatever. She completely ruined the lives of several people.

Absolutely staggering how trusting people can be, no matter what social strata they are from. Part of her spiel was about going to Suriname to bury things under a tree in the rainforest (!)

Fortunately she will be weaving her magic from behind bars for the next 10 years.

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/court-crime/juliette_d_souza_found_guilty_of_1million_shaman_faith_healing_fraud_1_3621364

Wow, pure evil indeed! Interesting read, thanks for posting it.

 

[geni]

Fortunately she will be weaving her magic from behind bars for the next 10 years.

5. Sentence is 10 years. Divide 2. 5 years.

 

[Dubious Dick]

5. Sentence is 10 years. Divide 2. 5 years.

There may be some hope on the issue of how long she will serve. As I understand it:

1. She will have to admit her guilt in order to get out after 5.
2. Hopefully there will be a proceeds of crime action, and if she cannot or will not comply she could end up serving more time.

 

[Bikewer]

What's amazing to me is that the same tired old scams continue to work. Years ago, when I was still with the local county PD, we had a fortune teller, "Madame Laura" working the area.
She'd converted an old house (and put bars on the windows..) and set up the red-hand fortune-teller sign.
Presently, a fellow came in to the police station who'd become suspicious. He'd been told by "Laura" that he had cancer. In order to be cured, he'd have to stuff a dead chicken with cash and bury it in a vacant lot at midnight...
We had the guy comply and staked out the lot. Sure enough, here comes Laura's son with a shovel.
Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage of victims make reports... Embarrassed, or rationalizing true believers....

 

[Pixel42]

Fraudulent faith healer jailed for 10 years

My question is: what was so different about this case that a prosecution was not only possible but successful? Why isn't every other self-proclaimed faith healer in court?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/fraudulent-faith-healer-jailed-10-years

A woman who posed as a faith healer to con vulnerable victims out of almost £1m has been jailed for 10 years.

Juliette D'Souza masqueraded as a shaman for more than 12 years to convince 11 of her clients to hand over thousands of pounds to solve issues such as illness, redundancy, or problems conceiving a baby.

 

[Daylightstar]

Could it be due to the amount of £1m?

 

[Mojo]

My question is: what was so different about this case that a prosecution was not only possible but successful? Why isn't every other self-proclaimed faith healer in court?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/30/fraudulent-faith-healer-jailed-10-years

According to the story:

The 59-year-old, from Hampstead, north London, told her victims the money was a "sacrifice" which would be used as a spiritual offering at a sacred tree in the Amazonian rainforest. There, two other shamans would perform rituals around the money before it was sent back, and their problems would be resolved, she claimed.

In fact she used the proceeds to fund an extravagant lifestyle including designer handbags, luxury holidays and antique furniture.

 

[Pixel42]

So it's the amount of money this particular con artist has extracted from her marks that makes the difference then? Making equally empty promises but only charging a few quid for them you can get away with, because few people are going to bother to sue even if they realize they've been conned and are willing to admit it.

I wonder what the limit is? At what point does the amount of money extracted become worth the loss of face from admitting you've been conned and the effort of the court case.

 

[Dubious Dick]

One report opens with the words 'Fake spiritual healer....'

As if there is any other type. You might guess which so called newspaper. I won't poison the thread by naming it here or linking to it.

 

[Lensman]

There's another post about this here with a bit more detail.

 

[Pixel42]

There's another post about this here with a bit more detail.

Apologies for failing to spot it, I've requested a merge.

 

[xtifr]

So it's the amount of money this particular con artist has extracted from her marks that makes the difference then? Making equally empty promises but only charging a few quid for them you can get away with, because few people are going to bother to sue even if they realize they've been conned and are willing to admit it.

Sure, there's a lot of things like that in Common Law-based systems. I'm only familiar with US law (and not particularly familiar with that), but we have things like Grand Theft, a much more serious crime than regular theft, which is distinguished only by the amount of money involved. Then there's Small Claims, which is generally limited to torts below a specific maximum monetary value (varies by jurisdiction), and usually neither side is allowed to use a lawyer.

I wonder what the limit is? At what point does the amount of money extracted become worth the loss of face from admitting you've been conned and the effort of the court case.

Well, justice may be blind, but it's not necessarily free. There's filing fees, court costs, and more. If you're trying to pursue criminal charges, the police and District Attorney (or whatever the UK equivalent is) have to get involved, and their time isn't free. Even if you don't have to pay directly, someone does, and if the prosecution fails, it's not going to be the defendant. So there's always risk-analysis involved in considering any given case.

And, of course, most psychics claim that what they're doing is for entertainment purposes, to skirt the laws against fraud, which means that conviction isn't necessarily a slam dunk, especially if the fees are in line with other forms of entertainment.

So yeah, there's a limit, though it's not a hard-and-fast one.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Ye gods - one victim alone, an 83-year-old former opera singer, gave D'Souza £353,000! What was she expecting in return? Eternal life?

 

[geni]

My question is: what was so different about this case that a prosecution was not only possible but successful? Why isn't every other self-proclaimed faith healer in court?

She made the mistake of saying she was doing a specific real world thing with the money.

"give me money and I will heal you" isn't fraud unless the prosecution and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person knows they can't heal (there are other laws that they could be breaking mind).

"Give me money and I will set fire to it which will heal you" is fraud if you don't set fire to it (or at least have a pretty good reason for thinking you set fire to it).