…well I know of one job that’s vacant anyway!
£112K worth of debt?! Sweet baby Jesus, thats some gambling habit he’s got there.
Gambling debts are unenforceable in law. It’s odd that someone would rather murder someone else than just stick two fingers upto a collection of lenders who’ve backed the wrong horse in lending money to someone to donk it all away…
He could have walked away from -£112k AND pocketed the £10k now not required to hired a hitman - right? 
Are Gambling Debts Enforceable?
The Gambling Act 2005 came into force in September 2007.
It states that gambling debt is enforceable as long as the debt came from gambling that is legal ie licensed casinos or betting shops.
Before 2007 all gambling debt was considered unenforceable so any debt incurred before this year would not be included.
Bet he’s a bit brassed off if he’s just completed his CPC. 
It’s not what the 2005 act says - it’s the practicality of extracting pound one from someone who’s completely skint.
If you have £200,000 in assets on the other hand, and run up say, £120,000 in losses on your string of credit cards - then of course it’s enforceable, as they’ll just take your house.
If you lose £120k and have bugger all though - what are they going to take? A CCJ will only award an attachment of earnings to someone who chooses to continue working max hours: Thus, someone being pursued for debt who then gets made redundant - pays nowt - providing they still have no assets.
Overall, gambling debts continue to be “unenforceable” simply because the person won’t usually be revealed as “insolvent from losing all one’s money” until they have run out of things to hock, and therefore have no further assets to be stripped of.
Bit daft trying to commit a crime to pay off something therefore, that is default, null, and void the moment there’s nothing left in the kitty to pay pound one back of.
Winseer:
It’s not what the 2005 act says - it’s the practicality of extracting pound one from someone who’s completely skint.If you have £200,000 in assets on the other hand, and run up say, £120,000 in losses on your string of credit cards - then of course it’s enforceable, as they’ll just take your house.
If you lose £120k and have bugger all though - what are they going to take? A CCJ will only award an attachment of earnings to someone who chooses to continue working max hours: Thus, someone being pursued for debt who then gets made redundant - pays nowt - providing they still have no assets.
Overall, gambling debts continue to be “unenforceable” simply because the person won’t usually be revealed as “insolvent from losing all one’s money” until they have run out of things to hock, and therefore have no further assets to be stripped of.
Bit daft trying to commit a crime to pay off something therefore, that is default, null, and void the moment there’s nothing left in the kitty to pay pound one back of.
Like so many other things in life, the theory isn’t always consistent with the practice. As you point out common sense has to prevail.
“Insolvency” tends to be when you cannot borrow any more money rather than “when your pockets are empty”.
A person with a credit line of £100k who’s just lost £50k can still go out and buy a new 4x4.
A guy with £100 to his name who’s just lost £99 of it is going to struggle to get home tonight - if he has no ability to get credit.
Who’s worse off?
Spending power isn’t the same as wealth, and someone with zero net value aways has a lot more than someone in debt. 
Notwithstanding the legal aspects of the monetary aspect of the subject, which I don’t think this knob would understand anyway, who would go down the pub and tell all your mates of your cunning plan?
