Fraud Flashcards
(19 cards)
Main legislation for fraud
Fraud Act 2006
What does Fraud Act 2006 do?
- Abolishes all theft act deception
- Introduces a general fraud offence
- Give maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment
Fraud by false representation Actus Reus
- Making a representation
- Representation is false
Mens Rea of Fraud by false representation
**- D knew representation was untrue **
- or might be untrue
-Or that it was misleading
- or might be misleading
- With intent to gain or cause loss
- Dishonestly
Representation (S.1)
What type of Representation - As to facts or law (also include opinions of D’s to the facts assuming genuine)
- Representation to who? - To V, even if V remains oblivious
No human intended as recipient (is okay) s2(5)
A representation is still considered “made” if it is submitted to a system or device (e.g. a computer or ATM).
* Method of Representation
Orally, in writing , gestures
Explicit or Implicit **(Idrees v DPP) ** - False representation considered when he hired someone to take his driving test
Barnard -> D wore Oxford University attire to obtain goods on credit.
Held to be an implied false representation (i.e. that he was a student).
Barnard is Implicit
Representations as to current states of mind or into the future
S2 of the Fraud Act 2003 Making a false representation
✅ 1. A Lie About Your Present Intention (Fraud)
If someone says they will do something in the future, but at the time they say it, they already know they’re lying, that can be fraud.
Example:
You borrow money and say, “I will repay you next week”, but you already know you won’t — you’re just saying it to get the money.
That’s a lie about your current intention — and that’s fraud**
❌ 2. A Genuine Promise That You Later Break (Not Fraud)
If you make a genuine promise to do something in the future (like pay back money), but then something changes, and you don’t do it — that’s not fraud.
Example:
You borrow money saying “I’ll repay you,” and you really meant it at the time, but you later can’t or don’t — that’s not a crime, even if the other person is upset.
Case example Govt v UAE - provided an undated check if they did not payback their loan (current representation)
Omissions under Section 2 of the Act
Making a false representation
Come under making a False Representation
1.) Continuing representation (D makes a true statement, fact change and D omits to inform V of the change)
DPP v Rain -> (although before act but still applicable). D went to restaurant ate and left without paying.
Govt v UAE -> Only when it is reasonable to do so
2.)Failure to disclose information
V makes a mistake, D is aware and benefits from the mistake
Still better to use section 3 though
False
True or misleading
“less than wholly true and capable of an interpretation to the detriment of V.”
No defence that D used falsity for a good reason
Section 2 of the Fraud Act (ALSO WHAT ABOUT SALES STRATEGIES)
Mens Rea of Making a False Representation
Knowledge - subjective (on belief of the D)
- Representation is untrue/misleading
- Representation might be true or misleading
Agunas [2013] -> D presented fake card. “If an accused person willfully shuts his eyes to the obvious doubts of the representation”
-** Dishonestly** [Ivey] (same as theft)
Minor subjective (consider facts as D knew them to be)
Jury should be sure D’s conduct was dishonest among ordinary and reasonable people (objective)
- With Intent (to gain or to cause loss). Expose to risk of loss s5(2) (result not needed)
Causal link between representation and intention, however. Gilbert (2012). D opened a bank account and lied about financial position.
- No problem that V knows D is lying
- Temporary or permanent loss does not matter
- Gain includes keeping what one already has, as well as a gain by getting what one does have
s.5(2)
Is an outcome needed for a false representation?
No it is not needed for a false reprsentation
Causation principles do not apply
Implications of Ivey test to Fraud
- Definition becomes a lot wider - Ivy Test (subjective), (is lying dishonest?)
Section 3 of Fraud Act Elements
**Fraud by failure to disclose information **
**Actus Reus: **
- Failure to Disclose Information
- D has a duty to disclose information
Mens Rea
Actus Reus of Section 3
1.) Failure to Disclose Information
Failure to disclose sufficient information if it renders part of the contract voidable
Partial Disclosure COUNTS
2.) D has a duty to disclose Information
Razoq - no definition of a legal duty to act depends on circumstance
Facts: D (doctor) had to pass different exams to qualify, failed to mention he got excluded from hospital because he failed. WAS A LEGAL DUTY
**2006 Act: **
1.) Duties from statute
2.) Contract (express or implied terms)
3.) Fiduciary Relationship
4.) Custom of a particular trade of market
Not all financial relationships include legal duty to disclose:
- Mashta [2010] - D recieved asslyum support when he had been in employment. Fraud by failing to disclose information. Legal duty to disclose
- D [2019] - Stopped paying council tax after saying she had moved. No statutory duty.
- Zeroual [2022] - Council Tax - Single person discount, failed to disclose wife was living with him. HOWEVER, single person discount said if you were going to benefit you had to let them know. (EXPRESS)
Fraud by failure to disclose
Mens Rea for S3
- Dishonesty - Ivey
- With intent to gain or to cause loss or expose to loss
- No need of knowledge (D does not need to know he has to tell them or comitting fraud)
Failure to disclose information
Section 4
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Actus Reus of Section 4
1.) Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person
Position of Financial Trust - not defined by statute
BUT (FA 2006 Explanatory Notes)
- Trustee and beneficiary
- Director and company
- Professional person and client
- Agent and principal
- Employee and employer between partners…..
- It may arise within a family (!) or… “in any context where the parties are not at arm’s length”
Examples:
Knowles [2013] - Energy Procurement Officer recieved payments to give to boss, did not pass them on. (Supposed to safeguard interests of another)
Woods [2011] - W was a deputy manager of a betting shop. Changed customers horse bets.
2.) Abuse of that position
Question for jury
In fiduciary - look at civil law rules, but no real definition
Pennock [2014] - Must be clear evidence of abuse for the judge to leave matter to the jury and there must be clear direction from the judge as to what the civil law would regard as a breach of duty
Examples of s4 (Position of financial trust)
Valujevs [2014]
- Gangmaster recieving payments and arranging for rent but he was overcharging them for various expenses. Was he in a position of safeguarding financial interests?
No, not just because he was an employer. Those additional aspects could have given rise to that position.
Cf. COL v DPP
- Indicated otherwise, V was treated as domestic servant by D
- Proved the person was trafficked in the country
- Was possible here, however.
Mens Rea Section 4
Same to S3
