Fraud Essay Plan

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

Context; argument advanced by this essay = FA 2006 is generally considered a success and thus fit for purpose, but some issues remain, hence there is room for improvement.

Question 2

Main Body

Answer 2

• Identify and explain the three offences contained in sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act and their core requirements.
• Explain and analyse how prior to the 2006 Act, the law was fragmented and uncertain. Too many offences. -> Law Comm 276 highlighted the complexity and lack of certainty in the law (patchwork of common law and statutory offences)… inconsistences made it difficult for the law to be applied.
• Law Comm: previous approach of ‘plugging the gaps in the law of fraud on an ad hoc basis needed to change.’

Question 3

Support: Broadness in caselaw

Answer 3

The 2006 Act = simpler and easier for juries to comprehend + enhanced certainty

**Deju **-> Broad ambit, capable of adapting to modern day, i.e., electronic fraud when previously wasn’t

Broad ambit justified by gaps in old law, as highlighted by DPP v Ray -> silence did not used to count but now it does under S2 (proving deception)

R v Laverty. …2006 fills in these gaps. Deception offence here failed (no direct deception because misrepresentation was not about ownership of car) but now covered under s2

Question 4

Support: Broadness in Ivey Test

Answer 4

Improved post-Ivey… ambit brought into more reasonable thanks to clearer law on dishonesty

Explain and analyse the benefits of there now being no need to prove obtaining, except for s.11.

No need to prove that a person was deceived  big improvement (analyse)

Question 5

Against (problems)

Answer 5

Extra-judicial [expand… ambit too broad?]… statutory provisions stretched and ‘fall foul of the meaning of gain or loss and the principle of remoteness.’

Blurred lines between (1) immoral and ‘socially objectionable’ conduct and (2) criminal behaviour. Build by referring to Ormerod… the Act criminalises lying.

OMEROD - More on broadness: section 4 criticised for being a catch-all provision, making civil issues a criminal matter.

Question 6

“Blurred lines between immoral/socially objectionable conduct and criminal behaviour”

Answer 6

CRITICISM David Ormerod

Fraud Act (especially s.2) is so broad it risks criminalising dishonesty itself, even when:

No serious harm occurs.
**
SHOULD ALL FORM OF DISHONESTY BE CRIMINALISED?**

Lying in a relationship,
Exaggerating to a friend,
Misleading someone in a personal disagreement.