Fraud notes
Week 4 Thursday
Fraud – governed by fraud act 2006 – creates single offence of fraud that can be committed
in 1 of 3 ways.
Statutory offence juts like theft and rape. Only studying the ones on handout.
The act it’s a single offences is demonstrated by s.1(1) of the act.
S1(1) sets out definition
S1(2) sets out different ways u can commit fraud
- A s2 – fraud by false representation
- B s3 – fraud by failing to disclose information
- C s4 – fraud by abuse of position
Each is expanded upon in its own sections.
These 3 way of com fraud render fraud a conduct crime. Not a result crime. Under mens rea
sufficient D intends to produce some sort of result but no proof of any such result is
required. Before 2006 fraud axct fraud offences were result crimes but since 2006 its
conduct crime.
Now the wrongfulness of fraud has been brought back where its almost attempted fraud
which is liable (b4 would be been seen as attempted fraud but now falls all under fraud)–
conduct crime and renders fraud rather inchoate.
Main fraud: fraud by false representation
s.2(1) contains def – of fraud by false rep: s. 2(1) Fraud Act 2006:
‘A person is in breach of this section if he –
(a) Dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) Intends, by making the representation
–
(i) To make a gain for himself or another; or
(ii) To cause loss to another or expose another to the risk of loss’.
Dividing this into actus and mens:
Actus: there must be a representation.
What is that? Def of representation def: s. 2(3) Fraud Act 2006:
, ‘“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as
to the state of mind of –
(a) The person making the representation, or (b) Any other person’.
Rep as to fact meaning: if d selling fake Rolex it is a rep as to fact – asserting the watch is
genuine but knowns it is fake. That is a rep as to a fact of its authenticity and is an example
as to rep as to fact.
e.g.Idrees v. dpp
D turned up to written driving test by turning up as someone else by presenting their
identification. This was a rep as to the fact that he was that person.
Rep for law:
So, If D is V’s solicitor and deliberately misrepresents the legal effect of a will to be, then it is
a MR as to law/ is a representation as to the law although its is a misrep of it.
Rep for
Where d states his intent or beliefs another person e.g. d can state his intention as to goods.
Major problem with pre-fraud law was that bc machinery had no minds they couldn’t be
deceived. Under new law u can deceive a machine (cash machine , computer etc) MR
doesn’t have to be to a person. s. 2(5) Fraud Act 2006:
‘...a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in
any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey, or respond to communication
(with or without human intervention)’.
- Can be thru text, notes, written anything.
S24 states the representation can be expressed or implied.
s. 2(4) Fraud Act 2006: ‘A representation may be express or implied’.
R v. Barnard (1837) 7 C & P 784.
Straightforward – where something is expressed.
Implied rep less clear – e.g. ur an art dealer and exhibit many paintings by famous artists
and incl within those paintings a painting which is not particularly valuable/famous. The
implied being that the painting which isn’t famous isn’t valuable is acc included. The implied
rep is as to the quality of that one piece bc by being incl alongside other it gives implied rep
that it is equally as valuable.
Week 4 Thursday
Fraud – governed by fraud act 2006 – creates single offence of fraud that can be committed
in 1 of 3 ways.
Statutory offence juts like theft and rape. Only studying the ones on handout.
The act it’s a single offences is demonstrated by s.1(1) of the act.
S1(1) sets out definition
S1(2) sets out different ways u can commit fraud
- A s2 – fraud by false representation
- B s3 – fraud by failing to disclose information
- C s4 – fraud by abuse of position
Each is expanded upon in its own sections.
These 3 way of com fraud render fraud a conduct crime. Not a result crime. Under mens rea
sufficient D intends to produce some sort of result but no proof of any such result is
required. Before 2006 fraud axct fraud offences were result crimes but since 2006 its
conduct crime.
Now the wrongfulness of fraud has been brought back where its almost attempted fraud
which is liable (b4 would be been seen as attempted fraud but now falls all under fraud)–
conduct crime and renders fraud rather inchoate.
Main fraud: fraud by false representation
s.2(1) contains def – of fraud by false rep: s. 2(1) Fraud Act 2006:
‘A person is in breach of this section if he –
(a) Dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) Intends, by making the representation
–
(i) To make a gain for himself or another; or
(ii) To cause loss to another or expose another to the risk of loss’.
Dividing this into actus and mens:
Actus: there must be a representation.
What is that? Def of representation def: s. 2(3) Fraud Act 2006:
, ‘“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as
to the state of mind of –
(a) The person making the representation, or (b) Any other person’.
Rep as to fact meaning: if d selling fake Rolex it is a rep as to fact – asserting the watch is
genuine but knowns it is fake. That is a rep as to a fact of its authenticity and is an example
as to rep as to fact.
e.g.Idrees v. dpp
D turned up to written driving test by turning up as someone else by presenting their
identification. This was a rep as to the fact that he was that person.
Rep for law:
So, If D is V’s solicitor and deliberately misrepresents the legal effect of a will to be, then it is
a MR as to law/ is a representation as to the law although its is a misrep of it.
Rep for
Where d states his intent or beliefs another person e.g. d can state his intention as to goods.
Major problem with pre-fraud law was that bc machinery had no minds they couldn’t be
deceived. Under new law u can deceive a machine (cash machine , computer etc) MR
doesn’t have to be to a person. s. 2(5) Fraud Act 2006:
‘...a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in
any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey, or respond to communication
(with or without human intervention)’.
- Can be thru text, notes, written anything.
S24 states the representation can be expressed or implied.
s. 2(4) Fraud Act 2006: ‘A representation may be express or implied’.
R v. Barnard (1837) 7 C & P 784.
Straightforward – where something is expressed.
Implied rep less clear – e.g. ur an art dealer and exhibit many paintings by famous artists
and incl within those paintings a painting which is not particularly valuable/famous. The
implied being that the painting which isn’t famous isn’t valuable is acc included. The implied
rep is as to the quality of that one piece bc by being incl alongside other it gives implied rep
that it is equally as valuable.
