A market trader selling thousands of pounds of fake designer clothes threatened an official sent to investigate him.
Ibrahim Akhtar, 24, of Hove Drive, Fallowfield, told trading standards officer Dennis Chalmers, 'I'm ****ing sick of you, you and your wife are going to get it', Stockport Magistrates heard.
Father-of-two Akhtar, who had a stall at Stockport Indoor Market, admitted 58 counts of selling counterfeit goods and asked for another 65 to be taken into account.
He was given an eight week prison sentence suspended for a year, a 12-month curfew between 7pm-7am and told to pay £4,531 costs.
Trading standards estimate the value of fake clothes sold - including Hugo Boss, Dolce and Gabbana, Timberland and Lacoste - to be £8,761 between June 2006 and January last year.
It was said Akhtar's market stall was closed down in March 2007, after Mr Chalmers' visit.
But then he took his counterfeit stock and opened Kells Wardrobe, in Edgeley, where he continued selling despite warnings. At the shop an undercover officer bought a fake Prada tracksuit for £40.
No remorse
Prosecuting for Stockport council, Ms J Fogden said: "He made no admission and showed no remorse. He threatened an officer in the course of his duty and asked if paperwork could be forgotten.
"The defendant was invited for interview twice and declined. Had he done so he perhaps would have been able to get some assistance."
Defending, Dan Gaskell said if Akhtar had been prosecuted in March 2007, his crimes could have been 'nipped in the bud'.
And that customers knew the clothes could not be real given how much they were sold for.
He also disputed the amount of profit Akhtar made from counterfeit goods, saying it was only £1,000, and claimed his client also sold genuine items.
Magistrates did not impose a community punishment after Mr Gaskell argued his client worked six days a week and spent the seventh topping up his stock at a wholesalers.
In sentencing, chairman of the bench Brian Chiles said: "Serious offences have been conducted over a number of years. You were warned on two occasions, despite these warnings you continued to offend for economic gain."
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Tarby, South Manchester (02/02/2010 at 09:26)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 09:34)
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 09:45)
Sorry, but they haven't. I don't believe any reasonable person would genuinely believe that selling obviously fake clothing is a serious offence. It's one of the most minor offences imaginable.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 09:53)
90s_higher_broughton (02/02/2010 at 09:55)
citycentre, manchester (02/02/2010 at 09:55)
Would that be the amount they were sold for, or what they would have cost at "real" prices?
Pop Tart (02/02/2010 at 10:01)
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 10:13)
I do, but as there is no suggestion that any theft has occurred in this case, it's an irrelevant question. You might as well ask if I view rape or murder to be serious, for all the pertinence the question carries.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (02/02/2010 at 10:44)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 10:45)
canonball, inside the helmet (02/02/2010 at 10:52)
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 11:00)
No, it's counterfeiting, hence the charge of counterfeiting, not theft. No theft occurs. Fraud only occurs if the goods are misrepresented and as it would be fairly obvious in this instance that the goods were fake, I think you'd struggle to argue there is any fraud either.
"These people steal the intellectual property of the designers."
No they don't. For a start, 'intellectual property' is a propaganda term applied to a range of state handouts, which are not property in the legal sense. Even if it were treated as genuine property rights, theft requires that the owner be deprived of that property. This act doesn't, because the original right holder is still able to produce goods. It is a breach of a state granted privilege, not the taking of the privilege.
It's like accusing me of stealing your TV because I watched it through your window. Whatever it is that I've done in that circumstance, it clearly isn't theft.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 11:02)
The goods may be dangerous - from cosmetics that can cause skin rashes to fake car parts that may cause accidents.
A lot of fake goods fund drug dealers and other organised crime - even terrorism.
You may end up paying higher taxes because people who deal in fakes don't - consumers like you end up making up the difference.
You may be putting local people out of jobs because genuine manufacturers can't compete with the criminals making and selling fakes.
If you buy fake goods and they don't live up to your expectations, you won't get any after sales service or guarantees.
Fake goods deprive the copyright owner of money that can be used to fund new development.
thoughtful, East of Manchester (02/02/2010 at 11:10)
Stevedore, Quayside (02/02/2010 at 11:22)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 11:31)
I can only assume that should Black Flag ever invent or design anything, he would be happy for others to copy it without paying him anything.
Quite why someone as rational and educated as Black Flag is wants to support this scumbag is beyond me. Perhaps just for the sake of being different.
Public School Pimms Lout (02/02/2010 at 11:35)
Organised crime makes millions out of fake goods and this money is used to fund further illegal activity such as the drugs business, people trafficking etc, etc.
Think before you buy fake goods, your money is funding organised crime!
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 11:41)
I'm not sure what point you were intending to make by posting that, but I'll happily unpick it.
"The goods may be dangerous - from cosmetics that can cause skin rashes to fake car parts that may cause accidents."
True, but not really relevant to clothing.
"A lot of fake goods fund drug dealers and other organised crime - even terrorism."
This is just mostly nonsensical sensationalist propaganda. People get involved in drug dealing and organised crime because, shock horror, it is profitable. It isn't a loss-making hobby which needs funding to make it viable.
As for terrorism, some people may use counterfeiting to fund terrorism, just as people may fund terrorism through legal work. I see no evidence that avoiding counterfeit goods would magically make terrorism disappear. In any case, as most terrorism seems to originate in oil rich states, it would seem that a far more effective way to avoid funding terrorism would be to stop buying petrol.
"You may end up paying higher taxes because people who deal in fakes don't - consumers like you end up making up the difference."
So, the consumer pays much less for goods, but pays a little more tax. It's still a net gain to the consumer. In any case, I'm fairly sure that tax evasion isn't limited to this one section of the economy.
"You may be putting local people out of jobs because genuine manufacturers can't compete with the criminals making and selling fakes."
How much Dolce and Gabbana clothing is made locally? Very little I would suspect.
"If you buy fake goods and they don't live up to your expectations, you won't get any after sales service or guarantees."
Possibly. You pays your money and you takes your chances, lthough the ability to threaten the seller with a vist from Trading Standards would probably provide some decent leverage.
"Fake goods deprive the copyright owner of money that can be used to fund new development."
It's a double edged sword. The opposite side of the equation is that, if the copyright holder can't rely on a steady income stream from past work, there is a greater need for them to continue producing.
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 11:49)
Hurry O'Caine, you're quite entitled to your views, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical for you to express them. After all, you didn't create the English language; other people put the work in to create the words and grammar which just come along and made use of.
You said: "I can only assume that should Black Flag ever invent or design anything, he would be happy for others to copy it without paying him anything." Actually I would, which means that my use of the English language on reciprocal terms is not hypocritical. Your continued "theft" of the English language, is, however, a different matter.
The Devil's Advocate, M11 born and bred, East Stand Lower 104 (02/02/2010 at 12:02)
2/02/2010 at 11:41
You wouldn't happen to have a decent recipe for french onion soup would you?
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (02/02/2010 at 12:03)
"Hurry O'Caine, you're quite entitled to your views, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical for you to express them. After all, you didn't create the English language; other people put the work in to create the words and grammar which just come along and made use of."
But my use of the language is not depriving its owners of earnings which are rightfully theirs.
"You said: "I can only assume that should Black Flag ever invent or design anything, he would be happy for others to copy it without paying him anything." Actually I would, which means that my use of the English language on reciprocal terms is not hypocritical. Your continued "theft" of the English language, is, however, a different matter."
Easy to say for someone, I suspect, who has never invented, created or written anything that anyone would want to copy.
Again, Black Flag, I admire your intellectual contortions but the result is not logical or in concorde with natural justice. Thank god you aren't a high court judge or in any position to exert your views on others.
Public School Pimms Lout (02/02/2010 at 12:06)
"This is just mostly nonsensical sensationalist propaganda. People get involved in drug dealing and organised crime because, shock horror, it is profitable. It isn't a loss-making hobby which needs funding to make it viable".
You are wrong on this count. Read '100 years of the Mafia'. A lot of money made from the drugs and prostitution trade went back into creating fake designer goods. They did loose some money, however the sentences were worlds apart when caught! 30 years for heroin dealing, 2 years for counterfeiting goods!
It was a form of laundering money and many other things besides.
Also many Chinese crime gangs control the flow of counterfeit goods from the far east, they are also involved in drugs, prostitution etc, etc, etc.
Don’t be naive Black Flag.................
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 12:18)
You're exhibiting a not uncommon, simplistic confusion between correlation and causality.
People who are involved in one form of illegal activity may also choose to become involved in another. That's worlds apart from saying that one activity is funding another. Common sense should tell you that, if an activity is highly profitable, the idea that it needs continual funding from another source to continue to be viable does add-up.
Your confusion jumps out in your statement "A lot of money made from the drugs and prostitution trade went back into creating fake designer goods." On one hand, you're saying that counterfeiting funds the drug trade, but here you're claiming the opposite - that the drug trade funds counterfeiting.
Please try thinking a bit more. It benefits everyone.
Black Flag (02/02/2010 at 12:33)
Not according to you. You claim anybody producing an idea is morally entitled to payment for its use. What is so special about your use of the English language that it magically allows you to over-ride that moral obligation you've just insisted exists?
"Easy to say for someone, I suspect, who has never invented, created or written anything that anyone would want to copy."
Well, you just did!
In addition to that, take the example of the webpage you're looking at now. It's written in XHTML, a derivate of HMTL, designed by Tim Berners-Lee. It's undoubtedly one of the most useful tools of our age and it is so precisely because he refused to claim any royalities for the use of his idea.
The fact that you're prepared to mock an approach, using a tool which is only available to you because of that same approach, is wonderfully ironic, don't you think?
"Again, Black Flag, I admire your intellectual contortions but the result is not logical or in concorde with natural justice."
Natural justice rests, if anything, on the consistent and even handed application of principles, something you seem to have little taste for.
Ignoramus, Manchester (02/02/2010 at 14:14)