Man jailed for raping prostitute by pretending to pay with envelope stuffed with paper

[Rudyboy]

A Canberra man has been jailed for eight months for raping a prostitute by pretending to pay with an envelope stuffed with paper.

Akis Livas, 52, appeared to be in disbelief when his lawyer explained to him that he would be locked up for the crime.

He pleaded guilty to the charge after he tricked the woman into sex when he did not have the money to pay her.

ACT Supreme Court Judge Hillary Penfold told the court there was no consent to sex when it was obtained by fraud.

Earlier the woman gave a victim impact statement to the court, describing her extreme fear and feeling of violation when she realised she had been duped.

She told the court Livas had booked her for four hours, and brought an envelope stuffed with paper which he pretended was the $850 to pay her.

The woman said when she discovered there was no money, she became scared.

"I felt internally violated, used and dirty," she told the court.

"I fully expected he was going to hurt me.

"He made me complicit in my own rape."

She told the court she has suffered from a lack of trust in others and was still receiving counselling.

"The offence was clearly premeditated," Justice Penfold told the court.

She noted Livas continued to minimise his responsibility and had not shown remorse.

"It seems Mr Livas is still focussed on the event as a commercial exercise," Justice Penfold said.

Lawyers for Livas told the court he was prepared to pay reparations, but the crown told the court none were being sought.

Livas will also serve a two-year good behaviour order

 

[XLNC]

Definitely a bad man, a very bad man, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, would it be considered rape if a punter was conned through false advertising into seeing a particular WL who turned out to be a short dumpy bogan instead of a tall busty supermodel, but because he was all revved up and ready to go, went along with the booking anyway? Would he be 'complicit in [his] own rape'?

I guess my theoretical punter could be seen as having greater choice to walk away than this WL who felt 'scared' (though the article does not indicate he actually made any threats), but on the face of it, being tagged as a rapist -- as opposed to a fraudster -- does seem a bit harsh. Not that I condone his behaviour in the slightest, of course.

 

[Farm Boy 2]

Open and shut case. Force , Fraud or Blackmail is rape . can not believe the victim's impact statement tho ..

 

[Luxi Summer]

Open and shut case. Force , Fraud or Blackmail is rape . can not believe the victim's impact statement tho ..

agree

 

[Happy2]

I still like the line from a pommy comedy
when talking about a similar though fictional case
"Where you of to son"
"Gotta go to the copshop give evidence for Molly"
"What she done now?"
"No she's the victim She was raped 14 days ago"
"Why she taken so long to come forward"
"The cheque has only just bounced"

 

[svengali]

Strange: I would have thought any half-smart lady would check the contents of the envelope (discretely) before starting any fun and games.

 

[sunyun]

I have to say it sounds more like fraud than rape to me.

She only became scared when she discovered that the envelope was stuffed with newspaper !

So if she had only opened the envelope after he had gone, would she have been scared at all ?

Where was the force ?

But he is a low life fraudster, and deserves to be sent to jail !

Wrong crime, right sentence.

 

[Lord Spikey]

Haha. I've done that lots of times. However, I'm smart. I use forged notes, hehe

I also run like hell and never give my real name.

I also cut off the end of my condoms.

Seriously, though. That is really bad on his behalf. I think he deserves it, but she needs to wake up a bit as well.

 

[scarlett lee]

Well at least the Australian judicial system has improved from the bad old days (actually about 20 years ago) when a working lady was violently gang raped and the sentencing judge gave the perpetrators a reduced jail term on the grounds that the victim "would not have been as affected by the crime as a normal woman' or some such bollocks. Still, I have to disagree with those of you who are saying it was fraud, not rape. Coercing a woman into sex is rape, having sex with a woman while she is too intoxicated to protest is rape, why not having sex with her under false pretences? No, I don't entirely beieve her victim impact statement either, but then again I don't know all the details. And, respectfully, XLNC I've got to say the false equivalence you've drawn is rather facile.

 

[XLNC]

... Coercing a woman into sex is rape, having sex with a woman while she is too intoxicated to protest is rape, why not having sex with her under false pretences? No, I don't entirely beieve her victim impact statement either, but then again I don't know all the details. And, respectfully, XLNC I've got to say the false equivalence you've drawn is rather facile.

Thank you, my facility for being facile is unparalleled.

My admittedly facile point was that if you're going to draw the somewhat long-ish bow and call this 'rape', you begin to devalue the term (as has occurred in recent years with the much over/misused 'misogyny'). What's next?

"Your honour, I only had sex with Jack/Jill because he/she promised to marry me. Later he/she told me it was only coz he/she was horny and wanted to get in my pants. Clearly, I have been raped as he/she had sex with me under false pretences."

Coercion, blackmail, taking advantage of disabled/drunk/drugged people when their decision-making faculties are impaired, all of these obviously are rape (regardless of what line of work the victim is in). But if the 'victim' has willingly engaged in the act, without any threat of violence, etc. but simply because s/he was gullible, then rape seems a bit strong.

As you say, we do not know all the details of the case and it is not absolutely clear from the article when the WL discovered the funny money. If it was when he handed her the envelope and she went through with the deed because she was scared of what he might do if she made a fuss, then there may well have been an element of explicit or implicit coercion involved (though the article is silent on whether there was any actual threat of violence or even if he had a menacing look about him, just what she says she felt) and the charge of rape would appear warranted because she went through with it against her free will -- however, that is not the sequence of events that seems to have occurred based on how the article is written.

If it was after having been bonked (as it seems to suggest), then she obviously and rightly felt 'duped' after the fact. So was she actually raped or conned? Again, I am not condoning his actions for a moment, just questioning the charge. But then, the legal definition of rape/sexual assault (as with sex with a consenting but underage person) may well cover this scenario -- I'm too lazy and haven't looked it up, so feel free to prove me wrong. It will be interesting to see if his lawyers appeal.

Interesting case and debate, with possible consequences for what men/women say to each other to get into bed with someone. Maybe I should stop using the chat-up line about being a billionaire astronaut chocolate factory proprietor.

 

[sunyun]

I totally agree with XLNC.

For me, it is all about fear.

If she was afraid before or during the act, then it is clearly rape.

If she was upset after the act because she was duped, then it is clearly fraud.

One is a crime against the body (rape) which should always be heavily punished, no matter who you are or what you do for a living.

The other is a crime against the wallet, and although people do get very emotional about being cheated, it should not be on the same level as a crime against the body.

Otherwise we devalue the severity of the crime of rape.

 

[Farm Boy 2]

All you bush lawyers need to find out the legal definition of rape . and consent

 

[Happy2]

Definitions and draconian laws

Who remembers the case in Perth of the 30 second rapist
When a man by the name of Ibbs(?) was having consensual sex with a friend of his wife who knew all about it as well
Then as he was close to coming she removed her consent He continued for a short time and Mr Ibbs was charged and sentenced to about 4 years

And it was later proved to be a scheme by the wife and woman involved

 

[Farm Boy 2]

I remember it well

 

[Rudyboy]

Wow, probably deserves some prison time for only treating a lady to 30 seconds! LOL

 

[Farm Boy 2]

It was extra unauthorized time

 

[Master Yoda]

I am saddened by such actions against working ladies............

 

[XLNC]

Definitions and draconian laws

Who remembers the case in Perth of the 30 second rapist
When a man by the name of Ibbs(?) was having consensual sex with a friend of his wife who knew all about it as well
Then as he was close to coming she removed her consent He continued for a short time and Mr Ibbs was charged and sentenced to about 4 years

And it was later proved to be a scheme by the wife and woman involved

Did he get off? After it was proved to be a set-up by the two scheming women I mean.

 

[Farm Boy 2]

Yes after he did Jail time and the woman were convicted 4 conspiring to pervert the course of justice ,or something like that .

 

[Happy2]

Eventually I also believe the AG softened the wording in the statutes as well

He served 6 to 12mnths and after at least 10 years he was able to have his conviction quashed Cost him a few bob Plus he had no contact with his daughter in those 10 or so years

Wife and the other lady were charged and convicted on perversion of justice or similar

 

[Farm Boy 2]

We must be H+W

 

[XLNC]

Honest & Willing?

 

[Happy2]

Surely the H would be for Humiliated

 

[Farm Boy 2]

And the W 4 Wise





















































































































Arse

 

[Happy2]

Wise After the event

 

[XLNC]

All you bush lawyers need to find out the legal definition of rape . and consent

Like I said, too lazy to look it up, especially on a Sunday. But not too lazy to type long posts, so I'll continue with my idle speculation instead...

Perhaps the charge and conviction hangs off the fact the WL's consent was conditional on her being compensated for the act and her time. Since he ripped her off, her consent was withdrawn ex post facto (it's amazing how much Rumpole, Perry Mason, Matlock, etc. stick in the old noodle) and he became an alleged -- and now convicted -- rapist (in law if not in common sense, the two not always intersecting).

If that legal conjecture on my part is more or less true, at risk of being facile yet again, how is the following scenario that different to pretending to pay a prostitute?

Bruce (17): C'arn, take off ya knickers too.
Sheila (16): But answer me: do you love me?
B: (sigh!) 'Course I luv ya, darl. Now take 'em off and I'll show ya how much I luv ya.
S: Oh Bruce, I love you too! (smooch smooch)
B: Ah, that's the way, luv, off they cum...
The next morning...
S: Oh Bruce, last night was wonderful! What shall we do today? Go down to the pier? Stroll along the waterfront? Have lunch at--
B: Nah, I'm going down the coast with Lozza for the weekend.
S: Lozza?! WTF?!! You said you loved me, ferchrissakes!!!
B: Wha'...? Oh, yeah. Heh heh... Look, I was horny and just wanted a quick root and I knew that's what ya wanted to hear. Get over it FFS. Jeez, youse sheilas take everything so, like, so serious and lit'ral.
S: (incredulity personified) But, but, but, I was a virgin, I was saving myself for The One, you said, you said... (sputter sputter) ... RAPE! I'VE BEEN RAPED!! RAAAPE!!!

Now, I'm not trying to trivialise the original case with the BS scenario above, but rather pointing out that men have been telling women what they want to hear to get into their knickers for aeons. And for just as long, women likewise have been using sex to con men into doing all sorts of things. If we reward the gullibility and emotional distress of the aggrieved party with a prison sentence for the 'offender', the gaols are going to be bursting at the seams with both sexes even more than they are now.

Still, would be interesting to see what the actual legal justification was in this case. But I'm too lazy to search for it myself.

 

[scarlett lee]

[/quote] Coercion, blackmail, taking advantage of disabled/drunk/drugged people when their decision-making faculties are impaired, all of these obviously are rape (regardless of what line of work the victim is in). But if the 'victim' has willingly engaged in the act, without any threat of violence, etc. but simply because s/he was gullible, then rape seems a bit strong.

As you say, we do not know all the details of the case and it is not absolutely clear from the article when the WL discovered the funny money. If it was when he handed her the envelope and she went through with the deed because she was scared of what he might do if she made a fuss, then there may well have been an element of explicit or implicit coercion involved (though the article is silent on whether there was any actual threat of violence or even if he had a menacing look about him, just what she says she felt) and the charge of rape would appear warranted because she went through with it against her free will -- however, that is not the sequence of events that seems to have occurred based on how the article is written.

If it was after having been bonked (as it seems to suggest), then she obviously and rightly felt 'duped' after the fact. So was she actually raped or conned? Again, I am not condoning his actions for a moment, just questioning the charge. But then, the legal definition of rape/sexual assault (as with sex with a consenting but underage person) may well cover this scenario -- I'm too lazy and haven't looked it up, so feel free to prove me wrong. It will be interesting to see if his lawyers appeal.


As you say, we do not know all the details of the case and it is not absolutely clear from the article when the WL discovered the funny money. If it was when he handed her the envelope and she went through with the deed because she was scared of what he might do if she made a fuss, then there may well have been an element of explicit or implicit coercion involved (though the article is silent on whether there was any actual threat of violence or even if he had a menacing look about him, just what she says she felt) and the charge of rape would appear warranted because she went through with it against her free will -- however, that is not the sequence of events that seems to have occurred based on how the article is written. [/quote]

That was how I'd originally read the post XLNC, making the assumption that she must have discovered the switch whilst he was still with her but felt too afraid or intimidated to call the whole thing off. That in my opinion is incontrovertibly rape. If the scenario played out differently then perhaps I'd reconsider my stance, but as has been said a couple of times now, we may never know exactly what went down.

 

[Happy2]

The jury had the full story unlike us
And we can assume (hopefully) that they were given clear direction Regarding the case

 

[Sir Cruiser]

Even with my knowledge of guys (no, not like that) in that there are guys that will say anything to get into girls knickers, I just do not get it. I must be stupid, naive or I don't know what I am but I have never and will never say anything just to get into a girls knickers. I have had girls who have been drunk and said they wanted to have sex, even naked ones at the top of the stairs but I would not take advantage of them. If the girl is willing and is aware of what they are saying, that is okay. If a girl is upset, just broken up with their boyfriend or partner, then I would give them comfort but not take advantage. I believe that everyone no matter what they do for a living has nothing to do with their ability to cope with rape, assault or any abuse of any kind. This woman feels betrayed and violated, to me that is enough. I think anyone who is duped, feels violated or abused has the right to justice.Good riddance to scum like that.

 

[XLNC]

I should clarify that I have never said whatever a girl has wanted to hear to get into her knickers, as my blessed conscience would ensure I never achieve an erection. But we all know there are guys who do, and equally there are girls who use sex to manipulate guys. I like to steer clear of both varieties.