Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless. Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony.
I disagree.
"Fraud has a real cost for all of us. This is a financial cost, which costs us extra taxes, adds to the cost of goods and service and makes the public and private sector organisations which we rely on less healthy and financially stable. This cost has been well researched recently in previous Reports which MacIntyre Hudson LLP and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies have published2.
However, there is also a human cost of fraud. As this Report makes crystal clear fraud is not a victimless crime.
When perpetrated against corporate bodies, its’ victims are those who are employed, whose employment is less secure by virtue of the reduced financial health of their employer. Victims include those who are customers of goods and services which provided, who either pay more than they should or who receive worse quality provision. In the public sector, victims include those who pay higher than necessary taxes and who get a government and public service which are not as good as what they pay for.
Even worse, though, is the effect of fraud, when directly impacting on individual citizens
http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/icjs/ccfs/cost-of-fraud.pdfBut didn't she pay the money back?