File 4lsjr1sgyaca


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

File 4lsjr1sgyaca

  1. 1.  Before the Fraud Act 2006, the offenceof fraud was governed under the TheftAct 1968 and 1978› S15 Theft Act 1968: obtaining property bydeception› S15A Theft Act 1968: obtaining moneytransfer by deception› S16 Theft Act 1968: obtaining pecuniary(monetary) advantages by deception
  2. 2.  Before the Fraud Act 2006, the offenceof fraud was governed under the TheftAct 1968 and 1978› S1 Theft Act 1978: obtaining services bydeception› S2 Theft Act 1978: evading liability bydeception
  3. 3.  Theft Act 1968 & 1978 gave rise toseveral problems There was a requirement for an elementof operative deception and this limitedthe application of fraud With the introduction of machinery alsocame the question on if machines canbe subject to deception
  4. 4.  In the case of Royle 1971, LJ Edmund-Davis described the provisions of fraud tobe a ‘nightmarish’ The Law Commission describe the oldlaw as having the following problems› Too many offences› Too much overlap between offences› Too much technicality etc
  5. 5.  Therefore they decided to repeal thedeception based offences and enactthe Fraud Act 2006 This was deliberately widely drafted toensure it could avoid technicality
  6. 6.  S1; offence of fraud committed bybreaching S2, 3 or 4 (various types offraud) S2; fraud by false representation S3; fraud by failure to disclose info S4; fraud by abuse of position S1(3); sanction S11; obtaining services dishonestly
  7. 7.  One section from the Theft Act 1978remains valid S3 Theft Act 1978; making off withoutpayment
  8. 8.  This is the main provision that describesthe offence of fraud It states fraud can be committed in anumber of listed ways It must the section that a person isconvicted under Section 2, 3 and 4 must be supported bySection 1
  9. 9.  A person convicted of fraud may beguilty under› (a) summary conviction: 12 months; fine;both› (b) indictment: imprisonment not exceeding10 years; fine; both Only applicable to S1
  10. 10.  S2(1); when defendant dishonestlymakes false representation with intentionto gain for himself of cause a loss orpossibility of a loss to another
  11. 11.  S2(2)(a); false is when the statement isuntrue or misleading S2(2)(b); defendant must know thatstatement is misleading or is reckless asto if it is untrue or misleading
  12. 12.  S2(3); representation can be arepresentation of› Fact› Law› Another’s state of mind S2(4); can be express or implied (can becommitted via omission/silence) S2(5); if submitted through a devicedesigned to communicate information, itwill be implied that it is representation
  13. 13.  S5(2); gain or loss is defined aspermanent or temporary attainment ordispossession of money or property S5(3); gain includes keeping ‘item’ S5(4); loss includes not getting ‘item’ This intention is to be observed throughthe virtual certainty test Dishonesty is to be determined by theGhosh test
  14. 14.  Ray and friends went to restaurant andordered meal Ray realised he did not have enoughmoney to pay and friend offered to lend After eating, they decided to run off Lord Morris said that he had indicated hishonest intention to pay but subsequentlyforms a dishonest intention. In his originalintention is a representation that thisintention will continue throughout.
  15. 15.  There was an implied representationwhen they sat at the restaurant that theywere going to pay This was deception and a dishonestrepresentation
  16. 16.  Defendant was granted an overdraftlimit of £100 The bank was willing to honour anycheque within £90 Defendant issued cheques worth £750 In issuing these cheques, he had made afalse implied representation to anotherthat he had the authority to issue thecheques
  17. 17.  Defendant knew that her credit cardhad exceeded its limit Continued use of the credit card was animplied representation
  18. 18.  Defendant wrote 4 post-dated chequesdespite knowing bank would not honourthem Defendant made a dishonest impliedrepresentation that the cheques wouldbe honoured by the bank
  19. 19.  Defendant rented out car despitehaving been disqualified from driving In filling out a form, he indicated that hehad never been convicted for trafficoffences nor been disqualified fromdriving Although he had never been convicted,the answer to both questions was not no Therefore the defendant had through hisconduct impliedly made a falserepresentation
  20. 20.  Defendant requested Council to fixbathroom for his home with his elderlymother His mother died and he did not informthe Council who went ahead with therepairs under the impression the motherwas alive and living with him His omission to make known the changeof facts was a false representation
  21. 21.  S3; dishonestly fails to discloseinformation required under his/her legalduty and intends to by doing so gain forhimself/another or cause loss or possibilityof loss for another
  22. 22.  Law Commission Report 276/2002 listedsituations where one would have a legalduty to disclose› Statute› Bona fide transactions› Express/implied terms require so› Customs› Fiduciary relationship It is often where one acts in another’sinterest
  23. 23.  S4; dishonestly abuses position in whichone is expected to safeguard and notact against another’s financial interestand intends to, by doing so, gain forhimself/another or cause a loss orpossible loss for another
  24. 24.  Law Commission Report 276/2002 listedsituations where one would be in aposition to safeguard another’s interest› Trustee-Beneficiary› Director-Company› Professional-Client› Agent-Principal› Employer-Employee› Partners› Family› Parties not at arms length
  25. 25.  Abuse is not defined in the Fraud Act2006 It is vague and subject to position ofdefendant S4(2); can be committed throughomission
  26. 26.  S11; an dishonest act and fraud by falserepresentation allows defendant toobtain services for himself/another
  27. 27.  S11(2); services are obtained if› (a) they are provided on the basis thatmoney has, shall or will be paid› (b) defendant obtain them without payingor paying in full› (c) defendant knows or is reckless as to (a)› Intend to not make payment or make onlypartial payment
  28. 28.  S11(3); sanction› (a) summary conviction: 12 months; fine;both› (b) indictment: imprisonment not exceeding5 years; fine; both
  29. 29.  S3; dishonestly makes off without payingas required/expected with intention toavoid payment despite knowing thatpayment is required/expected on thespot
  30. 30.  Making off required defendant to leavethe place or a particular spot The intention to be found is an intentionto avoid payment permanently
  31. 31.  Aziz: no need to identify a specific spot inwhich payment has to be made Vincent: possible to avoid conviction ifprior arrangement to pay later has beenmade by defendant
  32. 32.  S8 Theft Act 1968; steals and immediatelybefore or at the time of theft, uses forceon any person or puts person in fear ofbeing subjected to force theft + extra AR (FORCE)
  33. 33.  Force is not defined in the act Seek definition in common law Any degree of pressure would suffice
  34. 34.  Defendant pulled shopping bags awayfrom woman Amounted to force No requirement to touch victim Force can be indirectly applied Force was applied on the property stolen
  35. 35.  Defendant nudged victim causing victimto lose his balance and fall Held that a mere nudge will be sufficient Force does not need to beoverpowering
  36. 36.  Defendants broke into house to steal One went upstairs to look for items tosteal while the other tied up the owner Held that the appropriation was acontinuing act and at the time ofappropriation, force had been used The force was used to tie up the victim
  37. 37.  Defendant snatched handbag and ran But dropped it while running and madeoff without picking it up Convicted of robbery nonetheless At the moment he had dropped thebag, the offence of theft had occurredand he did use force to snatch the bag
  38. 38.  Defendants stole beer from a shop andused violence on the owner to escape Held appropriation is a continuing act Force used to escape will still beconsidered as force used to steal as thetheft/appropriation is a continuing act Will not be completed until the escapeoccurs
  39. 39.  S9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968; trespasser entersbuilding or part of it and intends to stealanything, inflict GBH or criminal damage S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968; trespasser entersbuilding or part of it and steals or try tosteal something within it or inflicts GBH orattempts to inflict GBH
  40. 40.  Defendant broke windows of a shop andleaned in to steal items He had actually been standing outsidewith his feet still outside the shop Argued he had not entered the buildingat all Held that the entry need not besubstantial His leaning into shop was sufficient to beentry
  41. 41.  B & S v Leathley 1979; container used asstorage unit. Was connected toelectricity and had been there for morethan 2 years. Held to be part of abuilding Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings 1986;lorries used as storage for 1 year butwere still kept on wheels. Held to be notpart of a building
  42. 42.  Defendants broke into parents homeand stole appliances Parents stated that they had thepermission to be in that home Court held that defendants had nullifiedpermission by stealing and wereconsidered trespassers
  43. 43.  S10 Theft Act 1968; burglary + firearm orweapon or explosive