Muhammed
Awais
P2/M2 – Fraud by False Representation
Section 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 to expose another to a risk
of loss.
Tara could be charged by S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006, before Tara could be prosecuted the court must prove the
Actus Reus which is making a false representation. False representation is defined in the law as representation
means any representation as to fact or law, including making a representation as to fact or law, including making
a representation as to the state of mind of, the person making the representation or any other person. This is also
known as a lie, in simple language. Representation has to cover a wide area, as it could cover a situation where
someone would say they own a property when they don’t. It also could be covered when someone is to say that
a car has done only 20,000 miles but they know that it has done more than that. So representation is where the
defendant says the law but they know that they will not do it. For example in a state of mind when someone says
that they will pay a bill when they don’t have an intention to pay for it. There are two parts of representation
there is express representation and there is implied representation. Express representation, the law says that there
isn’t not a way in which fraud could be committed. Just as along as the representation is expressed. So you can
guilty of false representation if it’s written, spoken, or posted on a website. For example when someone may
show a false identity card. Secondly implied representation is when someone makes a false representation by the
conduct of one. There is no meaning of this in the law. But for example implied representation could be when
someone is holding a charity box and say that he is collecting for orphans but the intention of the defendant is to
pocket the money. However, in the note section of the act it states that ‘an example of false representation by
conduct is when a person dishonestly uses a credit card to pay for items by tendering the card he is falsely
claiming that he has the authority to use it. In the case of DPP V Ray (1973) the defendant had gone to a
restaurant with three friends. He didn’t have enough money to pay for the meal he bought but one of his friend
offered to give him some money. After they had eaten the meal they decided that they were not going to pay for
it. Ten minutes after they thought this the waiter had gone into the kitchen and they saw the opportunity to run
away. They went out without paying. The court of appeal stated that they would reject the sentence which was
given to defendant as they had the intention to pay the money. The difference between implied representation
and express representation is that express representation is when you actually commit the fraud and implied is
when you think of doing it so you don’t do it. In the case of Emma, Tara had expressed representation as
she was using the card of Emma as she thought that she was the rightful owner. When she took out the
card out of the purse and dialled the numbers she was falsely representing someone else. Secondly Tara
hadn’t implied representation as she had the intention to pick up the purse and look inside. After she
looked inside she removed the card and tried to access the account. Therefore she has express
representation.
Secondly the court must prove the mens rea of the fraud by false representation, there are three aspects which
need to be proved. The first aspect which needs to be proved is that the defendant was dishonest. They will use
the Ghosh test to which asks two questions. They ask if the defendant knows that what he is doing is dishonest
and secondly would a reasonable man know that he is being dishonest. For example in the case of DPP V
Stonehouse, where the defendant who was a MP had faked his own death as he was in financial difficulty and
needed to raise some money. The defendant did this by leaving his clothes in a beach in Miami to make it look
like the defendant had committed suicide. His wife who hadn’t any idea had claimed for his insurance. Then he
was later found in Australia. The responsibility in this case was that Stonehouse wanted to make gain for
himself and his wife. The Ghosh test was used to find the outcome of this case. Mr Stonehouse had met both
requirements of the Ghosh test this is because he would know what he is doing is dishonest as he is an MP. Any
Awais
P2/M2 – Fraud by False Representation
Section 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 to expose another to a risk
of loss.
Tara could be charged by S.2 of the Fraud Act 2006, before Tara could be prosecuted the court must prove the
Actus Reus which is making a false representation. False representation is defined in the law as representation
means any representation as to fact or law, including making a representation as to fact or law, including making
a representation as to the state of mind of, the person making the representation or any other person. This is also
known as a lie, in simple language. Representation has to cover a wide area, as it could cover a situation where
someone would say they own a property when they don’t. It also could be covered when someone is to say that
a car has done only 20,000 miles but they know that it has done more than that. So representation is where the
defendant says the law but they know that they will not do it. For example in a state of mind when someone says
that they will pay a bill when they don’t have an intention to pay for it. There are two parts of representation
there is express representation and there is implied representation. Express representation, the law says that there
isn’t not a way in which fraud could be committed. Just as along as the representation is expressed. So you can
guilty of false representation if it’s written, spoken, or posted on a website. For example when someone may
show a false identity card. Secondly implied representation is when someone makes a false representation by the
conduct of one. There is no meaning of this in the law. But for example implied representation could be when
someone is holding a charity box and say that he is collecting for orphans but the intention of the defendant is to
pocket the money. However, in the note section of the act it states that ‘an example of false representation by
conduct is when a person dishonestly uses a credit card to pay for items by tendering the card he is falsely
claiming that he has the authority to use it. In the case of DPP V Ray (1973) the defendant had gone to a
restaurant with three friends. He didn’t have enough money to pay for the meal he bought but one of his friend
offered to give him some money. After they had eaten the meal they decided that they were not going to pay for
it. Ten minutes after they thought this the waiter had gone into the kitchen and they saw the opportunity to run
away. They went out without paying. The court of appeal stated that they would reject the sentence which was
given to defendant as they had the intention to pay the money. The difference between implied representation
and express representation is that express representation is when you actually commit the fraud and implied is
when you think of doing it so you don’t do it. In the case of Emma, Tara had expressed representation as
she was using the card of Emma as she thought that she was the rightful owner. When she took out the
card out of the purse and dialled the numbers she was falsely representing someone else. Secondly Tara
hadn’t implied representation as she had the intention to pick up the purse and look inside. After she
looked inside she removed the card and tried to access the account. Therefore she has express
representation.
Secondly the court must prove the mens rea of the fraud by false representation, there are three aspects which
need to be proved. The first aspect which needs to be proved is that the defendant was dishonest. They will use
the Ghosh test to which asks two questions. They ask if the defendant knows that what he is doing is dishonest
and secondly would a reasonable man know that he is being dishonest. For example in the case of DPP V
Stonehouse, where the defendant who was a MP had faked his own death as he was in financial difficulty and
needed to raise some money. The defendant did this by leaving his clothes in a beach in Miami to make it look
like the defendant had committed suicide. His wife who hadn’t any idea had claimed for his insurance. Then he
was later found in Australia. The responsibility in this case was that Stonehouse wanted to make gain for
himself and his wife. The Ghosh test was used to find the outcome of this case. Mr Stonehouse had met both
requirements of the Ghosh test this is because he would know what he is doing is dishonest as he is an MP. Any
