This morning I was watching a TV programme from 2003 investigating mortgage fraud. When they had to play back taped phone conversations with bank employees look what they used. People have said the WM-D6 was a favourite with journalists. Here is one being used in a BBC programme.
Your honour, my client denies all knowledge of any such conversation ever taking place and would propose that phone-tapping without the requisite legal warrants as well as recording said conversation on such an inferior recording device would certainly lead us into questioning the authenticity and accuracy of this conversation being reliably attributed to my client. Further, I would urge the jury to consider that if the undercover detective had decided to use the superior Sony TCD-5M device that this would have provided a much more accurate, genuine and representative recording of the voice of an an accused fraudster, of which my client clearly is not. I rest my case.
Actually there was no crime in this conversation which went along the lines of "I earn £34000 a year and would like a £300000 mortgage like my friends" "No because you have just told me that your income is £34000 per annum and this call is recorded (by the bank)". Of course there was a strong implication that admitting your real salary when applying for a "liar loan" mortgage was a mistake.
