the crime is to dishonestly acquire something, in this case the actual charge was fraud IIRC.

They conspired to win the prize in a way that was outside the rules, by obtaining help that they were not allowed to use. so the crime isn't winning it's how you won, and then did you really win or did you cheat.

much like in a sporting event, you can win by taking performance enhancing drugs, just because you came first doesn't mean you won.

The actual crime was "Procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" as defined in [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_(criminal_law)

Fraud is a tricky thing. It requires not only deceit, but 'legal injury'. The show producers clearly had great ratings, a popular show and considerable exposure due to the sensational nature of this family's win. Their winnings was a tiny fraction of a marketing budget. Arguably not a lot of legal injury there.

'But it was not fair!' is not a legal argument. Neither is 'outside the rules' since rules are not laws or regulations. Just some words the director spoke in their direction; hot air.

This is the law he was prosecuted under: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/20/1994-...

> A person who dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, by any deception procures the execution of a valuable security shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; and this subsection shall apply in relation to the making, acceptance, indorsement, alteration, cancellation or destruction in whole or in part of a valuable security, and in relation to the signing or sealing of any paper or other material in order that it may be made or converted into, or used or dealt with as, a valuable security, as if that were the execution of a valuable security.

He intended to gain, and he collaborated with someone else to cheat. Loss isn't required.

Under the newer law (Fraud Act 2006) it's not necessary to show any gain.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

> It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud (though they will clearly be material to sentence, compensation and confiscation). "Preddy" type difficulties will not arise (where the property obtained had not belonged to another);

To me it feels odd that you'd need to show a loss. How would you prosecute people who attempted but failed to defraud others?

But...'cheating' at a game, making that have the force of law, makes game-show hosts into lawmakers. That seems a strong stance. We're not talking a contract, nor a physical exchange of goods and services, nor anything else normally associated with civil cases. We're talking, the accused may have operated outside a set of arbitrary rules made by some civilian for fun.

> makes game-show hosts into lawmakers.

How? They're not adding anything into law.

> nor anything else normally associated with civil cases

This is a criminal, not civil, case.

Miss the point any? To be criminally prosecuted for not following a rule some producer made up, makes that rule into law. Because its enforceable in a court apparently. Really?

Being a criminal case makes it more egregious.

This. The sums of money at stake in soccer are far greater, the rules are much clearer and the participants routinely cheat yet no-one is ever prosecuted. Even the suggestion they ought to be seems risible.

I never understood the point of this prosecution.