Criminal Law

Criminal Law - Fraud

Рет қаралды 20,061

Күн бұрын

Fraud and other related offences such as bribery are covered in statute law but before getting into this it is useful to go over some of the key concepts.
Dishonesty is define in relation to the Ghosh [1982] test and contains both an objective and subjective element.
Gain and loss has a broad definition and can include keeping what you already have and not getting what you might other wise get. The actual property itself is also broadly defined to include money and range of property both tangible and intangible.
Intention can both be direct intention as well as foresight of a virtually certain consequence.
Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 covers fraud by false representation where the defendant makes an untrue or misleading representation. The mens rea is where the defendant acted dishonestly and knew the representation was (or was likely to be) false. There must also be an intention to make a gain or cause a loss.The representation itself can be express or implied. This is a conduct crime meaning that the victim need not act on the false representation.
Section 3 is fraud by the failure to disclose information but there has to have been a legal duty to disclose the information. The mens rea requirement is not clear whether there can be fraud where the defendant was unaware of the duty. The legal duty can originate from a statute, a contract or other fiduciary duty etc.
Section 4 is fraud by abuse of position and the 'position' is a reference to a fiduciary duty and the abuse must be dishonest and intended to make a gain or cause a loss.
Other offences under the Act include those relating to articles for fraud under sections 6 and 7. Section 11 relates to obtaining services dishonestly.
The Bribery Act 2010 establishes offences relating to paying and receiving bribes. Section 1 covers where the defendant promises/gives some financial or other advantage in order to persuade another person to act improperly or does so as a reward for them acting improperly. Section 2 relates to the receipt of a bribe.
Other related offences that also exist under the Theft Act 1968 include:
s. 17 - False accounting
s. 18 - Corporate liability for fraud offences
s. 19 - False statements by company directors
s. 20 - Suppression of documents
s. 21 - Blackmail
For blackmail the actus reus refers to a "demand with menaces" while the mens rea requires from the defendant "a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another”. A defence to blackmail can be where the demand is based on reasonable grounds and the approach taken is proportional.

Пікірлер: 20

@Uzochi97x 6 жыл бұрын

The second limb of Ghosh has been overruled guys... Ivey v Genting Casinos 2017

@mosinraja3509 3 жыл бұрын

It's dishonesty test and now it's overruled with ivey

@daniyarkurmambayev5950 2 жыл бұрын

The Ghosh test has been revised to an objective test, with rare exceptions, by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67

@danaalsekri5060 5 жыл бұрын

Thank you, you've helped me understand the fraud act

@jenniferkneller6792 2 жыл бұрын

Actually, you’ve helped break down my stupid case and how people may be liable across borders. Obv have to take into account. Also, I hate everyone.

@chrisdavies73 Жыл бұрын

Would being stalked and having your property monitored be fraudulent?

@ieltsgenius3050 6 жыл бұрын

Well the video is informative but you must have relevant cases to make a sense of the video

@googleaccount2675 6 жыл бұрын

I am assuming your going on about UK Law and not EU Law in general?

@marcuscleaver 6 жыл бұрын

Aye, Fraud Act 06 is a UK statute.

@googleaccount2675 6 жыл бұрын

wonder what it is in France, my parents where hiding they their anti semitism and we found out they where defaming my spouse, we already had children and been together for ten years so the attorney we went to said it was better to see if they would attend a mediation, as they agreed when we started these meetings they admitted to wanting us separated because of THEIR religious views, we then realised they had interfered with a police incident in the past and an attacker was actually someone they knew, when we asked them about it they only threat to use the family tribunal and request for visitations, which is preposterous, the mediator herself been bias said if they do we will never be able to bring any charges against them for violating our freedom of choice and defamation, suddenly we we tried to relocate to the UK we get served visitations request by the family tribunal clearly designed to interfere with our children's jewish identity, requesting they stay at my parents home on friday and saturday, shabbats, exactly when they go to synagogue, we then went to see an attorney from our synagouge and she was rude, later admitting some oen form the police called them claiming my spouse is a muslim, this is totally insane, as we where also attending services between 2009-2012 the synagogue vice president lied and claimed we had briefly been their a few months before the service of these visitations court documents in 2013, january, we spoke to one of the rabbis they finally got after a year of been rabbi-less due to changes and he called them all liars, they told him the same thing, this is all fraud...after we finally threw this kangaroo case out based on how my parents miss represented it all (and they denied it was them doing all this even after the case) we finally decided to move as our attorney and local police advised us yet when we arrived to the new region near paris we had already been defamed, the law requires my parents to request visitations but instead they re opened the case requesting to not let us leave the France, like nazis! my parents worked for the military base as taylors, we have cousins in the french police, as they asked people to visit our childrens schools, pretending they had no idea where we lived to defame my spouse who is not a muslim, we wrote to a prosecutor who in return did NOTHING at all., we moved again and the same thing happened in 2017, they would go to the townhall pretending we where running from a judgement they got re opening a case AFTER we moved., this is criminal and no one is doing anything about it, now a family judge is investigating our children claiming its nothing to do with their grandparents who police admitted visited them and got caught pretending we where missing, and we visited the court house to see the procedural history and learned that it was them who filed the complaint pretending our children where abused to attempt having our children removed if we tried to enter the UK, on the phone they said if we dare try telling prosecutors or court cassation we (me and my spouse) will loose our children and be institutionalised in a psychiatric center, this is absolutely criminal and racist., my parents never once mentioned a single problem during our first ten years and 3 children and now they are pretending my spouse is a guy living with me and my children to defame him because of religion, to who do we complain, we sent 80 pages to prosecutors and all the police did was tell us its a family matter.

@catherinemccann895 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks can i sue falsely misrepresentated himself on a telephone call as my support worker when he is in fact a neighbourhood coach

@Thegrumpycoach 2 жыл бұрын

Are you American?

@slainehagan8672 5 жыл бұрын

Oh shit. I'm a fraudster ... I've done all of them.. but then again so has everybody, depending on the interpretation. Is an act a law? Cheers. If someone tried to bribe me I'd take it. Am I a bad man?