Sportingindex.com Extortion demand from Sportingindex.com London England

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.
In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce." Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.
Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed.
Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In "strong arm" robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In "robbery" goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of anotherwith or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat (refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876).
The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. But extortion sometimes leads to more dangerous illicit activities which raises concerns with law enforcement agencies. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled "legalized extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.

Mark Maydon Compliance Officer of sportingindex. com does not see this claim as extortion and wishes to disassociate Sportingindex.com for the behaviour of its employee.

Here is the Definition from the American legal dictionary

Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right. It is a felony in all US states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing damaging information to family, friends or the public

In this case the threat was to post falsehoods on the Internet made by an individual working for sportinglife.com. I am happy to withdraw the term extortion and apologise for its use if it does not fit this case. Surrey Police to whom the incident has been reported are not taking action, as it is not a felony in England.

Mark Maydon compliance officer of Sporting Index Limited has sent a letter pointing out that a member of the Finance Department of Sportingindex.com answered his telephone on his behalf. It was David Court who was connected by the switchboard as Compliance Officer rather than Mark Maydon that the conversation was held and he passed on the letter from David Hipkind to Warren Murphy.

He points out that no demand has been issued by Sporting Index Ltd. This is good news. But the demand was made by a company officer using the company address and email and citing his job title. This looks like a demand from the company and would probably be taken as such in law. He states that Sporting Index has no involvement or interest in this claim. That has never been in doubt.

This is, of course, precisely the point. Many would argu that company engaged in highly sensitive financial activities should take an interest in what its employees are doing in office hours.

He suggests that he will bring legal proceedings for defamation for publicising this exchange. However, Sporting Index disassociates itself from the action of its employee David Hipkind who requested money under threat of posting inaccurate information on the internet. Thus the threat is from its employee rather than the corporation.

Mark Maydon compliance officer of Sporting Index Limited has sent a letter pointing out that a member of the Finance Department of Sportingindex.com answered his telephone on his behalf. It was David Court who was connected by the switchboard as Compliance Officer rather than Mark Maydon that the conversation was held and he passed on the letter from David Hipkind to Warren Murphy.

He points out that no demand has been issued by Sporting Index Ltd. This is good news. But the demand was made by a company officer using the company address and email and citing his job title. This looks like a demand from the company and would probably be taken as such in law. He states that Sporting Index has no involvement or interest in this claim. That has never been in doubt.

This is, of course, precisely the point. Many would argu that company engaged in highly sensitive financial activities should take an interest in what its employees are doing in office hours.

He suggests that he will bring legal proceedings for defamation for publicising this exchange. However, Sporting Index disassociates itself from the action of its employee David Hipkind who requested money under threat of posting inaccurate information on the internet. Thus the threat is from its employee rather than the corporation.

Mark Maydon compliance officer of Sporting Index Limited has sent a letter pointing out that a member of the Finance Department of Sportingindex.com answered his telephone on his behalf. It was David Court who was connected by the switchboard as Compliance Officer rather than Mark Maydon that the conversation was held and he passed on the letter from David Hipkind to Warren Murphy.

He points out that no demand has been issued by Sporting Index Ltd. This is good news. But the demand was made by a company officer using the company address and email and citing his job title. This looks like a demand from the company and would probably be taken as such in law. He states that Sporting Index has no involvement or interest in this claim. That has never been in doubt.

This is, of course, precisely the point. Many would argu that company engaged in highly sensitive financial activities should take an interest in what its employees are doing in office hours.

He suggests that he will bring legal proceedings for defamation for publicising this exchange. However, Sporting Index disassociates itself from the action of its employee David Hipkind who requested money under threat of posting inaccurate information on the internet. Thus the threat is from its employee rather than the corporation.

Mark Maydon compliance officer of Sporting Index Limited has sent a letter pointing out that a member of the Finance Department of Sportingindex.com answered his telephone on his behalf. It was David Court who was connected by the switchboard as Compliance Officer rather than Mark Maydon that the conversation was held and he passed on the letter from David Hipkind to Warren Murphy.

He points out that no demand has been issued by Sporting Index Ltd. This is good news. But the demand was made by a company officer using the company address and email and citing his job title. This looks like a demand from the company and would probably be taken as such in law. He states that Sporting Index has no involvement or interest in this claim. That has never been in doubt.

This is, of course, precisely the point. Many would argu that company engaged in highly sensitive financial activities should take an interest in what its employees are doing in office hours.

He suggests that he will bring legal proceedings for defamation for publicising this exchange. However, Sporting Index disassociates itself from the action of its employee David Hipkind who requested money under threat of posting inaccurate information on the internet. Thus the threat is from its employee rather than the corporation.