Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Fraud - Coggle Diagram

- - - - false representation made
        
        s2(2)A false representation is made if:
        (a)Untrue or misleading
        (b) Person making it knows that it is or might be untrue or misleading
        
        s2(3) Representation as to law or fact
        or representation as to the state of mind of:
        
        (3)(a) person making the representation
        
        (3)(b) any other person
        
        as to law: D states law knowing it is untrue
        (I DON'T NEED TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN MY HOUSE!)
        
        as to fact: D says something that is factually untrue. (I OWN BUCKINGHAM PALACE!)
        
        as to state of mind covers: D saying they will pay bill but not intending to
        
        s2(4) A representation may be expressed or implied
        
        s2(5) Representation can be made if submitted through any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)
      - Fraud Act 2006 explanatory notes: no limit on the way representation must be expressed
    - - Dishonesty
      - s2(2)(b) Knowing that representation was or might be untrue or misleading
      - s1(b)With intent to:
        (i) Make gain for self or another
        (ii) cause loss to another
        (ii) expose another to risk of loss
        
        "Gain" and "Loss" defined in:Theft Act 1968 s34
        
        s34(i) "Gain" includes keeping what one has, and getting what one does not have
        
        s34(ii)"Loss" includes not getting what one might get, and parting with what one has
        
        R v Kapitene
        
        Wages earned="gain" made
        Wages paid out="loss" caused
  - - - s4 of Fraud Act 2006,
        
        (1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
        
        (b) Dishonestly abuses that position, and
        
        (c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position -
        
        (i) to make a gain or for himself or another, or
        
        (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss
        
        (a) Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
        
        (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though is conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act
    - - Abuse of a position of trust
        
        'abuse' is not defined to cover a wide range of conduct inclusive of omissions
        
        R v Marshall
        
        Carers for elderly that gain access to their clients' bank account and transfer funds to their own account
        
        R v Valujevs
        
        The expectation under s4 is an objective one based on the position of the reasonable man
        
        R v Gayle
        
        Employee abusing position to facilitate a criminal offence
    - - Dishonesty
        
        Same as in Theft
      - intention to make a gain or cause a loss
        
        R v Kapitene
  - - - A person is in breach of this section if he—
        (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
        (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
        (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
        (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
    - - legal duty to disclose information
        
        indefinite situations in which can arise
        e.g. disclosing risk factors when entering into insurance contracts
        
        R v D (2019): dishonestly fails to disclose her residence to levy her council tax, quashed as there was no legal duty to disclose it at the time
      - failure to disclose information
    - - dishonesty
        
        even if a defendant does not have the legal duty to disclose information, can still be liable for fraud under S2 if their failure of disclosure is treated as 'misleading'.
        
        R v Rai (2000): defendant was convicted,held that he 'mislead' the council into believing his mother needs did not change when it had
      - intention to make a gain or cause a loss
      - R v Blight and Ingham (2019): two wreck divers dishonestly fail to disclose they info that they have possession of the wreck and sold the contents and kept the proceeds
    - - if the defendant did not know of the existence of duty, the only likely defence is an absence of dishonesty
- - - - services obtained include:
        
        using false credit card details to obtain services on the internet
        
        climbing over the fence to watch a football match knowing that a ticket has to be paid for
    - - when the defendant knows that services are payable, but attempts to circumvent payment
  - - - not necessary to show that they have deceived anyone
    - - defendant must know services are only available if payment has been made or will be made for them
    - - if the defendant thought someone else has already paid they will not be guilty of this offence
  - - - (b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment having been made in full, and
      - (c) when he obtains them, he knows—
        (i) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or
        (ii) that they might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
      - (a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them,
- - - - Basic fraud offence is 'obtaining property by deception' under s15 of the Theft Act 1968. Rest is derived from common law, the Theft act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
        
        Later offences like
        
        money transfer by deception
        
        evasion of liability by deception
        
        obtaining pecuniary (financial) advantage by deception
        were added
      - Just 4 years after passing the Theft Act 1968, the Criminal Law revision Committee was asked to look into amendments to cover fraud
        
        Reacting to an obvious lack of offences or proper definitions
    - - Provisions under Theft Act 1968 couldn't cover all offences and were difficult to interpret
        
        Later amendments made the law more confusing and defeats the purpose of a codified statute of theft offences
    - - Fraudsters can easily evade liability by pointing out the facts of their case that are outside the provisions of the Act.
    - - Cases like Gomez or Hinks should've been charged under frau offences rather than theft.
        
        Courts then interpret theft offences strangely to ensure convictions, since no one wants to acquit fraudsters
    - - Higher courts left many terms to the jury's interpretation, this creates inconsistencies
        
        For example, considering someone dishonest is open to a jury's interpretation. This is important as most fraud offences rely on proving 'deception'.
        
        Shown in Ivey
    - - Fraud is also in contract law and the majority of fraud cases can be prosecuted civilly without the need for criminal prosecution
    - - Under Criminal Law Act 1977, a conspiracy to defraud is when two or more people agree dishonestly to prejudice the economic interest of others
        
        This offence is very broad and criminalises behaviour that wouldn't be an offence for one person acting alone
        
        The breadth and ease of proving this offence made it popular with prosecutors
  - - - Fraud is an extremely under-reported offence. Only 15% of businesses report fraud to the police despite the increasing prevalence of fraudulent schemes.