Page |1
UNIT 5 – Aspects of property offences and police powers
Assignment 1 Part B: Fraud & Criminal Damage
Task 4 – Apply the law on fraud and criminal damage in given scenarios coming to a reasoned conclusion
(M2)
Subsidiary Diploma in Applied Law
Unit 5: Aspects of property offences and police powers
, Page |2
In this application of different clients, I will be applying the different laws of offences, which include
fraud by false representation under s2 of the Fraud Act 2006, as well as Obtaining Services Dishonestly
under S11 of the Fraud Act 2006. I will also apply some clients to the Criminal Damage Act under S1 (1)
simple Criminal Damage, S1 (2) Aggravated Criminal Damage, and S1 (3) Criminal Damage by Arson,
bringing in an informed conclusion whether the clients are guilty under any of these offences.
Client A
A representation was made when Anika, the shop owner had put the label on a collecting box that read
‘Cancer Research’ and then kept the money that was in the box.
Anika who owns a shop, puts a collecting box on the counter with the label ‘Cancer Research’ on it. Customers
often put coins in it. Anika keeps all the money which customers put in the box.
Anika did make a false representation because, the collecting box was meant to collect money for Cancer
Research, yet Anika did not give the money to the charity, rather she kept the money for herself.
Anika was dishonest because, under the Ghosh test the ordinary reasonable person would consider Anika’s
actions as dishonest because they would not do that, because it was meant to be for a cause of ‘Cancer
Research’. In addition to this, it is clear Anika would have believed that what she did was dishonest
because she knew she had no intention to donate the money to cancer research.
Anika knew it was untrue or misleading because, her intention for the collecting box, for cancer research
was not in fact for donation to cancer research, but rather to her own self. Therefore, her actions were
misleading.
Anika did intent to make a gain or cause another a loss when, she kept the money that was meant to be for
the cancer research, and so she made a gain from what she was doing. And by keeping the money her
intentions show that she wanted to make a gain out of what she was doing.
Overall, in the case of Anika, we can clearly show that she is guilty of Fraud by false representation under
S2 of the Fraud Act 2006, because she meets all the elements needed in order to be found guilty of false
representation.
Client B
Bennet and Candy have obtained a service when they both went to a local restaurant, and have ordered a
meal, and then eat it.
Bennet and Candy go to a local restaurant, candy believes they are each going to pay for their own meal, but
unknown to her, Bennet had decided that he will leave without paying. They both order a meal. When they have
eaten, Bennet gets up to leave. Candy asks him about paying and he says, ‘come on, there’s no one looking, we
can just go’ and he walks out of the door.
Subsidiary Diploma in Applied Law
Unit 5: Aspects of property offences and police powers
UNIT 5 – Aspects of property offences and police powers
Assignment 1 Part B: Fraud & Criminal Damage
Task 4 – Apply the law on fraud and criminal damage in given scenarios coming to a reasoned conclusion
(M2)
Subsidiary Diploma in Applied Law
Unit 5: Aspects of property offences and police powers
, Page |2
In this application of different clients, I will be applying the different laws of offences, which include
fraud by false representation under s2 of the Fraud Act 2006, as well as Obtaining Services Dishonestly
under S11 of the Fraud Act 2006. I will also apply some clients to the Criminal Damage Act under S1 (1)
simple Criminal Damage, S1 (2) Aggravated Criminal Damage, and S1 (3) Criminal Damage by Arson,
bringing in an informed conclusion whether the clients are guilty under any of these offences.
Client A
A representation was made when Anika, the shop owner had put the label on a collecting box that read
‘Cancer Research’ and then kept the money that was in the box.
Anika who owns a shop, puts a collecting box on the counter with the label ‘Cancer Research’ on it. Customers
often put coins in it. Anika keeps all the money which customers put in the box.
Anika did make a false representation because, the collecting box was meant to collect money for Cancer
Research, yet Anika did not give the money to the charity, rather she kept the money for herself.
Anika was dishonest because, under the Ghosh test the ordinary reasonable person would consider Anika’s
actions as dishonest because they would not do that, because it was meant to be for a cause of ‘Cancer
Research’. In addition to this, it is clear Anika would have believed that what she did was dishonest
because she knew she had no intention to donate the money to cancer research.
Anika knew it was untrue or misleading because, her intention for the collecting box, for cancer research
was not in fact for donation to cancer research, but rather to her own self. Therefore, her actions were
misleading.
Anika did intent to make a gain or cause another a loss when, she kept the money that was meant to be for
the cancer research, and so she made a gain from what she was doing. And by keeping the money her
intentions show that she wanted to make a gain out of what she was doing.
Overall, in the case of Anika, we can clearly show that she is guilty of Fraud by false representation under
S2 of the Fraud Act 2006, because she meets all the elements needed in order to be found guilty of false
representation.
Client B
Bennet and Candy have obtained a service when they both went to a local restaurant, and have ordered a
meal, and then eat it.
Bennet and Candy go to a local restaurant, candy believes they are each going to pay for their own meal, but
unknown to her, Bennet had decided that he will leave without paying. They both order a meal. When they have
eaten, Bennet gets up to leave. Candy asks him about paying and he says, ‘come on, there’s no one looking, we
can just go’ and he walks out of the door.
Subsidiary Diploma in Applied Law
Unit 5: Aspects of property offences and police powers
