1. Offences under the Fraud Act 2006

2. Fraud by False Representation

3. Background Statutory offence Fraud Act 2006 Actus Reus Mens Rea
Representation
Dishonesty
Which is false
Untrue/ misleading
Intention to make gain/cause loss

4. Actus Reus #1; A representation
Section 2 (3)
Fact – saying something is when it is not
Law - contractually
Section 4, representation may be made;
Express
Implied

5. Actus Reus #1; A representation
Express
How representation is portrayed
Silverman (1987)
Hamilton (2008)

6. Actus Reus #1; A representation
Implied
Representation through conduct
Representation as to the state of mind of a person can be sufficient for liability
Bernard (1887)
Court said obiter;
That he would be guilty even if he said nothing
Cap and gown was itself false representation

7. Actus Reus #1; A representation
Implied Lambie (1981) Charles (1976)

8. Actus Reus #2 representation must be false
Government Response to consultation 2006
“less than wholly true & capable of interpretation to the detriment of V”
Ray (1974)
Change of mind = deception
Rai (2000)
Where D stated that a fact was true, and the facts change, D must inform the other party
Whether D used the money as agreed is a drcision for the party

9. Mens Rea #1 Dishonesty Ghosh Test – Lord Justice Lane
Was D’s act dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest person?
If so
2. Did D realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the act as being dishonest?

10. Mens rea #2; Knowing representation was untrue/misleading
D must know that the representation is or may be untrue/misleading

11. Mens Rea #3 Intention to make gain/loss
Fraud does not need to succeed D just needs to intend gain/loss
Laverty (1970)

12. Obtaining services dishonestly

13. Background
Statutory offence Fraud Act 2006 section 2 Max sentence = 5 years
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
An act
Dishonesty
Which obtains
Knowledge
Services
Intention not to pay
Not paid for

14. Actus Reus #1; An act
D can not attract liability through an omission

15. Actus Reus #2 which obtained
Result crime
D does not need to have obtained services for himself
Deception not needed and there is no need to prove the provider has been decieved

16. Actus Reus #3 services Word not defined by the act
Services can include
Any service must be dishonestly obtained
Downloading paid software for free
Eating without paying
Chipped sky box
Taking advantage of a club membership without paying
Use of fake bus pass
Claiming to be over/under age

17. Actus Reus #4 which are paid in full for
Section 11 (2) (b)- D obtains them without payment or without payment in full
D only has to have failed to make full payment
Sofroniou (2004)
CoA decided that for there to be a service within the meaning, there has to be an agreement of sufficient understanding that an identifiable payment has or will be made

18. Mens Rea #1 Dishonesty Ghosh Test – Lord Justice Lane
Was D’s act dishonest according to the standards of the reasonable and honest person?
If so
2. Did D realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the act as being dishonest?

19. Mens Rea #2 Knowledge that the services are made available on the basis they are paid for
Section 11 (2) (c)
D must know that the services are only available on the basis that payment has or will be made

20. Mens Rea #3 Intention not to pay at all, or not to pay in full
If D honestly believed the service was paid for him he will not be guilty
If d believes that services are supplied on credit then he can not be guilty