[ad_1]
In May 2023, five men behind pirate IPTV service Flawless TV were sentenced at Chesterfield Justice Center in the UK.
After a five-year investigation involving four territorial police forces, three regional Trading Standards units, plus entities from the private sector, the men were sentenced to over 30 years' prison on various counts, primarily conspiracy to defraud.
Mark Gould, described as the mastermind of the operation, received a landmark sentence of 11 years' prison following a private prosecution by the Premier League.
The sentences were a significant win for the plaintiff, with each sending a clear message to anyone else considering similar conduct in the UK market.
Flawlessly Affordable Football, Especially on Saturday
Launched in August 2016, Flawless TV obtained subscription TV broadcasts from both legal and illegal sources. After combining live channels into a package, Flawless streamed that content to its own subscribers at a price that dramatically undercut Sky and Virgin Media.
With a focus on providing reliable access to Premier League matches, including those subject to the UK's 3pm ‘blackout', Flawless was a smash hit with thousands of football fans and a major headache for the Premier League and its broadcasting partners. While Mark Gould didn't run Flawless alone, he was identified as the platform's driving force and the person in charge of business decisions and finances.
Flawless generated an estimated £4.6 million in revenue during its 22 months of operation. Of that amount, £3.7 million was profit, which was split between the individuals involved. Mark Gould received the largest share, approximately £1.7 million.
Gould was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to defraud, one spanning from August 2016 to May 2018, the other from May 2018 to July 2021. He was also found guilty of contempt of court for violating a Restraint Order imposed after his initial arrest in May 2018. Gould continued to offer pirate IPTV subscriptions after his arrest and exceeded his permitted weekly living expenses by £181,800, contrary to the terms of the order.
Court of Appeal
To this difficult background, Gould requested leave to appeal his 11-year sentence. The judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal hasn't been publicized by the Premier League, but it does shine light on the Court's view of such a significant sentence in an online piracy case.
First, Gould's lawyer argued that the trial judge’s calculation of the financial losses, suffered by the legitimate broadcasters, was fundamentally flawed. The judge considered factors such as Gould’s profits and the potential value of official subscriptions in a scenario where Flawless customers opted for legal services instead.
Gould's appeal argued that only the risk of loss to proprietary rights should've been considered. However, the judge could not accurately assess those losses, Gould's lawyer added, because evidence showing contractual agreements between content producers, owners, and broadcasters, wasn't presented as evidence.
The second aspect of the appeal argued that while Gould was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to defraud, those two counts actually represented a single criminal enterprise, not two as previously alleged. The difference between those scenarios is striking. When Gould was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to defraud, and a third count of contempt, the sentence for each offense fell to be served consecutively.
At trial, that could've meant in excess of 13 years' imprisonment, but the judge recognized the need to ensure a proportionate sentence, arriving at 11 years instead.
Sentence was Neither Manifestly Excessive nor Disproportionate
After considering the method used by the trial judge to calculate loss, the Court of Appeal posed a rhetorical question. How much would Flawless have had to pay legitimate broadcasters had they negotiated a deal to do lawfully what they actually did unlawfully?
The answer was “something close to what the broadcasters charged their other customers.” Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeal took a more straightforward approach.
“The business model of Flawless and their successors involved breaching the copyright of the legitimate broadcasters. In practical terms they stole the product of those broadcasters. No further technical analysis is required,” the judgment reads.
In respect of the claim that Gould's conduct should be considered as a single conspiracy rather than two counts leading to consecutive sentences, the Court disagreed. Gould had modified his approach to business after his arrest in 2018, switching to a reseller-based model, utilizing different streaming service names, while incorporating Bitcoin payments.
In the court's view, these operational changes show that there were two distinct illicit businesses so consecutive sentences were indeed appropriate. All things considered, the Court concluded that Gould's 11-year sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the severity of his crimes.
Gould's application for leave to appeal was therefore denied.
——–
For general comparison, other serious fraud convictions reported by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2023/24
Five member gang, biggest benefit fraud in England's history (£53m): 25 years prison
Man disguised Ponzi scheme as betting syndicate, thousands of victims (£44 million): 6 years prison
Bernie Ecclestone (F1 fame) failed to declare £416m assets to HMRC, £650m payment: 17 months (susp)
iSpoof fraud tools site operator, 200K UK victims (£43m UK/ £100m worldwide): ~13 years prison
Premier League footballer, investment fraud, targeted friends, family, associates (£15 million): 7.5 years prison
From: _, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
[ad_2]
By David Minister
Be the first to comment