Fraud 3 Flashcards
(18 cards)
What was held in R v Caslin? Intent - Orally (Oral)
The defendant was held to have obtained by a false pretence because the representation made by her that she was a prostitute, prepared to prostitute her body and that she had a bedroom available for that purpose were undoubtedly false
What was held in R v Barnard? Intent - Conduct
The defendant entered a shop in a university town wearing a cap and gown to convey the notion that he was a member of the university and as such, able to receive a discount offered to university students
Explain ‘continuing effect’ in relation to fraud:
In many cases a representation by words or conduct may have a continuing effect.
For example, entering a restaurant and ordering dinner represents that the diner will follow the normal practice and pay for the meal. If during the course of dinner the diner decides to avoid that payment, the continuing representation will become false and the obtaining of food will come within 240
What was discussed in R v Waterfall? (all waterfalls have a general rule)
The Court discussed that, as a general rule, silence or non-disclosure will not be regarded as a representation.
Discuss Police v Dronjak “label swapping”:
Swapped the price on a radio, was told it was $600. Did not point out change in price tag. By maintaining his silence it was found he obtained the title to the radio by deception
Explain ‘knowledge’ in regards to representation:
The prosecution must prove the defendant knew that the representation was false in a material particular or was reckless as to its falsity. Absolute certainty is not required.
How is knowledge established?
- An admission
- Implication from the circumstances surrounding the event
- Propensity evidence
What was held in R v Crooks in relation to liability?
It was held that the accused may also be liable if their conduct has amounted to “wilful blindness” and this is equated to knowledge
Explain “false in a material particular” and what the prosecution must prove:
The Prosecution must establish either that the defendant knows or believes his representation is false or is reckless as to whether it is false.
A minor detail may amount to a “material particular” if it is of consequence to the facts of the case.
The question of materiality will be assessed objectively.
When is a matter a “material particular”? R v Mallett
A matter will be a “material particular” if it is something important or something that matters
What Section involves an omission to disclose a material particular?
Section 240(2)(b) concerns an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive where there is a duty to disclose.
What is an omission?
An omission is inaction. It can either be a conscious decision not to do something or not giving thought to the matter at all.
Explain duty to disclose for 240(2)(b):
- An intent to deceive
- Some material particular that was not disclosed, that the defendant was under a duty to disclose and the they failed to perform that duty.
Explain what must be included for a charge of Section 240(2)(c) Fraudulent device
Concerns a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
The scheme or trick must be fraudulent and this means dishonest
Define ‘device’
A plan, scheme or trick
Define ‘trick’
An action or scheme undertaken to fool, outwit or deceive
Define ‘Stratagem’
A cunning plan or scheme especially for deceiving an enemy, or trickery
Example of deception - documentary
Presenting a false certificate of qualifications
