Fraud (Dishonesty crime) Flashcards
HMA v Richards 1971
R was convicted of fraud on an indictment alleging that in pursuance of a fraudulent scheme he caused certain persons to pretend that B desired to purchase certain property for the private residential use of himself and his family, the truth being that B had no intention that the property should be so used. R appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the indictment was irrelevant in that the alleged misrepresentation related to future intention.
Held, that the indictment was relevant. The appeal failed Sale of a mansion under the pretence that it would not be altered nor built upon in any way. Accused in fact desired to build upon house.
It is present intent which can be described as false for the purposes of fraud.
Tapsell v Prentice 1910
gypsy woman pretended she was representing gypsy group, induced shopkeeper to give her £30 worth of groceries in exchange for a rug worth £30. Case failed. “just the ordinary lies which people tell when they wan to induce credulous members of the public to purchase goods, or to do something for them…”
HMA v McAllister 1996
accused pretended that he carried out work to a value of £2000 whenin fact the work was worth £80, older lady, social works, Crown appealed, - refused.
James Paton 1858
The accused had entered bulls into a livestock competition
The accused had injected air under the skin of the bulls, and artificially lengthened their horns, in order to make them look better(?).
It was held that this was fraudulent, on the basis of an implied false pretence.
Whether something is false or not is generally a straightforward matter of fact. After all, if the pretence is true, no crime is committed. The criminal law is not there to protect someone who loses out in an honestly-made bad bargain. There may be civil law remedies based on contract law for that sort of thing, but the test for criminal liability on the basis of fraud is a high bar
Strathern v Fogal 1922
False declaraion regarding tax was fraud. A complaint charged a father and his sons with having entered into a scheme for fraudulently obtaining, from the tenants of shops owned by the father, payments for a continuation of their tenancy, by falsely representing that the shops had been let to the sons, and that, unless the payments were made, the tenants would be ejected.
Held that the alleged misrepresentations could not form the basis of a criminal complaint, in respect that they were not misrepresentations regarding the subjects of the negotiations but merely regarding collateral matters; and, accordingly, that the complaint was irrelevant.
William Fraser 1847
persuading a woman to have sexual intercourse by pretending to be her husband was held to be a type of fraud
Adcock v Archibald 1925
The accused was a miner. He had attached a tag to a colleague’s pile of coal, which falsely identified him as having mined it.
The only practical result was that his employer recorded that the accused had dug the coal. He was not paid anything extra.
It was held that this was a “practical result”, and therefore fraudulent.
Lord Justice-General Clyde: “It is … a mistake to suppose that to the commission of fraud it is necessary to prove an actual gain by the accused, or an actual loss on the part of the person alleged to be defrauded. Any definite practical result achieved by the fraud is enough.”
This principle in Adcock was recently challenged by Craig Whyte (of Rangers infamy), but it was held to still be “good law”:
adcock
So, in other words, as long as there is a causal link (see the section on the legal concept of causation), almost anything could be construed as a practical result of fraud.
HMA v Mather 1914
the accused obtained delivery of some cattle,then wrote a cheque in payment. He did not have sufficient funds in his account to cover the cheque but a charge of fraud was held to be irrelevant since the false representation (that he had money in his account) was not made until after the contract was completed - it did not cause this result;=> Knowingly gave false money to purchase cattle
=> Guilty
CAUSATION the false pretence must be the cause of the victim’s actings
Mackenzie v Skeen 1971
Responsibly for weighing barrels of animal inners, less than true weight, deprive of potential profit, wasn’t proved that he didn’t know what he was doing, no deliberation to this. Nevertheless was found guilty and appealed, on appeal was held that the essential ingredients of fraud were not here, wasn’t false and neither was there any fraudulent intent of practical result. High court said both element not proven.; the accused was very careless about the ‘statement’ made but this did not amount to fraudOn M’s appeal against conviction of defrauding his employers by making false returns as to weights of goods dispatched, held, that since neither loss to the employers nor fraudulent intent had been proved there could be no fraud or attempted fraud.
Fraud
it can be imposed by statute ‘ a false pretence to another person in knowledge of its falsity, with intention to deceive the other person into acting in a way which s/he would not otherwise have acted provided the person is deceived and does so act on account of it’ elements: false pretence, practical result, causal connection
