Other

Question 1

What is required to be proved for ‘Obtains by Deception?’

Answer 1

You must prove:
* that there was an intent to deceive
* that there was a representation by the defendant
* that the representation was false; and that the defendant either:
- knew it to be false in a material particular OR
- was reckless whether it was false in a material particular.

Question 2

Must there be an intention to deceive?

Answer 2

No offence is committed unless the false statement, non-disclosure or trick etc, is made or used by the defendant for the purpose of deceiving their victim, or in the knowledge that the victim is virtually certain to be deceived.

Simester and Brookbanks highlight that it is insufficient that the deception is done in the mere awareness, without so intending, that the victim may be deceived. That would be a case of recklessness rather than intent, and falls outside the scope of s240(2).

Note that the recklessness mentioned in s240(2)(a) only relates to whether a representation is false in a material particular.

Question 3

What are three ways of deceiving?

Answer 3

Orally (by spoken words)

Example: Verbally claiming to own goods that are in fact subject to a hire purchase agreement.

In the case of R v Caslin9 the defendant was held to have obtained by a false pretence because the representation made by her that she was a prostitute, prepared to prostitute her body and that she had a bedroom available for that purpose were undoubtedly false on that particular occasion.

By conduct

Example: Representing oneself to be a collector for charity by appearing to be carrying an official collection bag.

In R v Barnard10 the defendant entered a shop in a university town wearing a cap and gown to convey the notion that he was a member of the university and as such, able to receive a discount offered to university students.

Documentary

Example: Presenting a false certificate of qualification or completing a valueless cheque on an account in which there are no funds knowing the cheque will not be honoured.

Question 4

Is silence regarded as representation?

Answer 4

In R v Waterfall, the Court discussed that, as a general rule, silence or non-disclosure will not be regarded as a representation, but there are exceptions to this such as where an incorrect understanding is implied from a course of dealing and the defendant has failed to negate that incorrect understanding.

One controversial exception to the rule on silence is found in “label swapping” cases.

In Police v Dronjak, the defendant was shopping in a department store. He was approached by an assistant who, in reply to his query, advised that the cost of a particular car radio was $695.83. He advised the assistant that he would purchase the item when he went through the checkout.

By the time the defendant arrived at the checkout the item bore two price tags, one for $695.83 the other for $38.88.

The defendant allowed the cashier to charge an incorrect price by not pointing out the higher price tag on the goods. It was argued that this amounted to a representation that the price tag was the correct one.

It was commented that by maintaining silence in the face of a mistake known to him and by deliberately refraining from drawing the checkout assistant’s attention to the mistake, Dronjak had obtained title to the radio by a false pretence (deception).

Question 5

How can knowledge be established?

Answer 5

Knowledge can be established by:
* an admission
* implication from the circumstances surrounding the event
* propensity evidence

Wilful blindness may also suffice

Question 6

What happens when there is a duty to disclose but the Defendant doesn’t?

Answer 6

Along with showing an intent to deceive, requires you to show that there was some material particular that was not disclosed, that the defendant was under a duty to disclose and that the defendant failed to perform that duty.

A duty to disclose will often originate in the civil law, for example where the parties are in a contractual relationship.

Question 7

Examples of privilege or benefit

Answer 7

The words “privilege” or “benefit” are not limited to a privilege or benefit of a pecuniary nature. Both of these words mean a ‘special right or advantage’.

Examples
* Using another person’s gym membership card so that you can use the gym facilities.
* Access to medical services.
* The withdrawal of an assault charge.
* A reduction in sentence for an offence.

Question 8

Whats the difference between theft and obtaining by deception?

Answer 8

An important distinction between theft and obtaining by deception is that in theft the property is obtained without the owner’s permission and title is not passed on.

Question 9

When must credit be paid?

Answer 9

Credit may involve varying periods of time. Credit can be obtained over lengthy periods, as in loan agreements, or for a matter of minutes, such as the time taken to consume a meal or receive a haircut. At the end of the period of credit payment is expected to be made.

Question 10

What are examples of when credit may be obtained?

Answer 10

Examples of situations where ‘credit’ may be obtained include:
* obtaining money on loan
* extending existing overdraft facilities
* renting or leasing a dwelling

Question 11

What is continuing representations?

Answer 11

In many cases a representation, whether by words or conduct, may be of continuing effect. Thus, entry into a restaurant and ordering a meal would usually be a representation that one will follow the normal practice and pay for the meal at the appropriate time.

If, during the course of the meal, a diner decides to avoid payment, the continuing representation of an intention to pay will become false and any subsequent obtaining of food will come within s240.

Question 12

Is lack of funds an intent to deceive?

Answer 12

Intent to deceive is not disclosed merely because there is:
* delay or non-payment of the debt, or
* an inability to perform a bona fide intention

For example, to incur a debt and then be unable to pay through unforeseen circumstances, loss of money or oversight is not deceit.

Also,
Intent to deceive does not exist where payment is withheld because of genuine dissatisfaction with the service.

For example, where payment of the cost of a meal is refused because of the quality of the food (made prior to the meal being wholly consumed).

Question 13

How does hire purchase work with deception

Answer 13

Where goods are obtained on hire purchase by a false representation, the offence committed is deception.

However, if the offender later sells the goods to another, the offender commits theft by conversion. The offender never receives title for goods fraudulently obtained on hire purchase.

Section 240(1)(c) relates to inducing or causing any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage. Where a person has been induced to deal with a document there will ordinarily be a benefit or a loss to someone resulting from that. Thus, a charge under another part of this section will usually be more appropriate.

Question 14

What is required to prove inducment?

Answer 14

The inducement should be proved whenever possible by direct evidence from the person alleged to have been defrauded. In practice the victim of the deception is usually questioned to elicit answers proving:
* that the false representation was believed, and
* that it was the consequence of that belief that the victim parted with his or her money

Question 15

What is required to be proved for 240(1)(d)?

Answer 15

In R v Morley the Court said the prosecution must prove that:
* the loss was caused by a deception
* it was reasonably foreseeable some more than trivial loss would occur, but
* need not prove the loss was intentionally caused.

Thus, there must be loss to “any other person”, but there is no requirement that there be any benefit to anyone.

Question 16

What is the meaning of ‘to any other person?’

Answer 16

Legislation provides a wide definition of the term “person” that incorporates not only real people, but also companies and other organisations.

Section 2 Crimes Act 1961
Interpretation

Person, owner, and other words and expressions of the like kind, include the Crown and any public body or local authority, and any board, society, or company, and any other body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and the inhabitants of the district of any local authority, in relation to such acts and things as it or they are capable of doing or owning.

Question 17

What is the penalty for 240 offences?

Answer 17

7 years if the value is over $1,000
1 year for $500-$1,000
3 months for less than $500

Question 18

What is the propensity rule?

Answer 18

Propensity rule
(1) In this section and sections 41 to 43, propensity evidence—
(a) means evidence that tends to show a person’s propensity to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind, being evidence of acts, omissions, events, or circumstances with which a person is alleged to have been involved; but
(b) does not include evidence of an act or omission that is—
(i) 1 of the elements of the offence for which the person is being tried; or
(ii) the cause of action in the proceeding in question.

(2) A party may offer propensity evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding about any person.

(3) However, propensity evidence about—
(a) a defendant in a criminal proceeding may be offered only in accordance with section 41 or 42 or 43, whichever section is applicable; and
(b) a complainant in a sexual case in relation to the complainant’s sexual experience may be offered only in accordance with section 44.

(4) Evidence that is solely or mainly relevant to veracity is governed by the veracity rules set out in section 37 and, accordingly, this section does not apply to evidence of that kind.

Question 19

When may prosecution offer propensity evidence?

Answer 19

Section 43, Evidence Act 2006

Propensity evidence offered by prosecution about defendants

(1) The prosecution may offer propensity evidence about a defendant in a criminal proceeding only if the evidence has a probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.

(2) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge must take into account the nature of the issue in dispute

(3) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge may consider, among other matters, the following:
(a) the frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred:
(b) the connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(c) the extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(d) the number of persons making allegations against the defendant that are the same as, or are similar to, the subject of the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(e) whether the allegations described in paragraph (d) may be the result of collusion or suggestibility:
(f) the extent to which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried are unusual.

(4) When assessing the prejudicial effect of evidence on the defendant, the Judge must consider, among any other matters,—
(a) whether the evidence is likely to unfairly predispose the fact-finder against the defendant; and
(b) whether the fact-finder will tend to give disproportionate weight in reaching a verdict to evidence of other acts or omissions.

Question 20

When is propensity admissible?

Answer 20

Propensity evidence, whether on previous or later occasions to the offence charged, is admissible in cases of deception where there is a sufficiently strong connection between the offences.

For example, evidence that other cheques drawn by the defendant were dishonoured may be evidence of the circumstances in which the cheque that is the subject matter of the charge was drawn, and therefore directly relevant to the defendant’s state of mind (intent) when he or she issued it.

Evidence of propensity will be subject to the admissibility rules under s7 of the Act.

Question 21

What is better title?

Answer 21

A person cannot give better title to property than they own. Where a seller, who has no rights of ownership to the goods and who acts without the authority of the true owner, purports to pass title to a buyer, that buyer can receive no greater interest in the goods than the seller had. Section 149 refers;

Section 149, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
Sale by person who is not owner

(1) This section applies if goods are sold by a person who—
(a) is not the owner of the goods; and
(b) does not sell the goods under the authority or with the consent of the
owner.
(2) The buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the
owner of the goods is by the owner’s conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

Question 22

What is voidable title?

Answer 22

A title obtained by deception, fraud, duress or misrepresentation is called a ‘voidable title’. This means that the title can be voided by the seller.

Until the title is voided, the defrauder has voidable title, and can confer good title on anyone who acquires the goods from him or her in good faith and for value.

Example
The complainant believes an altered gift card given to him to be good and valuable, so he is happy to hand over not only possession of the goods but title to them as well. The result is that the offender obtains title, albeit a voidable title.

Question 23

Scenario for voidable title (civil action)

Answer 23

A agrees to sell a vehicle to B

A has good title to the vehicle and passes title to B in accordance with the terms of the contract between them. The intention is for title in the vehicle pass from A to B and is confirmed in the in-transfer documents lodged with the Motor Vehicle Registry for transfer of ownership.

In this agreement of sale, B agrees to pay A the sum of $2,000 in total, in 4 equal instalments of $500. Only one instalment is paid, A is owed $1,500. However, title in the vehicle remains with B.
Note, this is different from a hire purchase agreement, where the title remains with the seller until full payment is made.

From a civil perspective, A is an ‘unpaid seller’ and has a claim for price. This means that A may bring a civil claim seeking an order of the Disputes Tribunal that the buyer pay the seller the remaining sale price (or possibly return of the vehicle, depending on A’s wishes).
However, B’s title is voidable by civil action against B. A cannot take back possession of the vehicle from B, as B has title.

If B has on-sold the vehicle to C, and C is unaware of the defect in B’s title, then C receives good title to the vehicle, provided C buys the vehicle in good faith and without notice of B’s defect in title. In this situation A has a remedy against B, not against the ultimate buyer C.
To void B’s title

Question 24

Scenario for voidable title (Obtain by Deception)

Answer 24

B meets with A with the intention of viewing A’s vehicle for sale. B is a prolific fraudster and has no intention to pay for the vehicle, nor does he have any means to pay the asking price of $15,000.

B manages to convince A that he is genuine and an honest buyer. An agreement is made on a hand shake that B will take the vehicle home and pay the following day. B provides false written details about himself and leaves with the vehicle. B makes no further contact with A and keeps the vehicle.

In this situation, B obtains possession of the car and title because A intended to pass over title.

However, because A’s consent has been obtained by deception, B’s title can be regarded as voidable.

In this example, B has a title until it is voided by A.

Apart from notifying Police of this deception, to void the title, A must take civil steps to do so.

If B sells the car to C before the title is voided, and C buys it innocently and legitimately without knowing of B’s deception, C gains title.

Section 151 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
Sale under voidable title, applies:
“Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith and without notice of the seller’s defect of title.”

Section 152(2) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 also applies:
Revesting of property in stolen goods on conviction of offender:
“(2) Despite any other enactment, the property in goods obtained by fraud or other wrongful means that does not amount to theft does not revest in the person who was the owner of the goods (or that person’s personal representative) by reason only of the conviction of the offender.

Sub (2) provides that even if B is convicted for this fraud, C does not lose title to the vehicle, pursuant to s 151 of the C&CLA. Section 151 provides that where B has a voidable title to the vehicle, but A had not taken steps to void B’s title before B sold it to C, C keeps good title to the vehicle.
Note: From a practical perspective, proving intent in this scenario could be difficult and, in many situations, there is a fine line between criminal and civil matters.

Question 25

Can you receive goods after they have been returned?

Answer 25

Receiving after restoration to owner

Crimes Act 1961, Section 246(4) If-

(a) any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence has been returned to the owner; or
(b) legal title to any such property has been acquired by any other person,

a subsequent receiving of it is not an offence, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence.

Question 26

What is legal title?

Answer 26

Title (albeit voidable) obtained by means of a false pretence is still a ‘legal title’ within s246(4).

Section 246(4) is an exception to the rule that you cannot get a better title than the seller. If the original purchaser subsequently sells the goods to an innocent buyer (one who is not aware of the defect in title) then the title has been made legal.

The effect of this section is that a person, who in certain circumstances may be a ‘receiver’, cannot be convicted of receiving from a fraudulent offender who has a voidable title to goods dishonestly obtained by means of a deception.

Question 27

What is title voided?

Answer 27

Conversely, if the voidable title has already been voided by a complainant, leaving the fraudulent offender with mere possession only, then a ‘legal title’ has not been acquired within the meaning of the section and a subsequent receiving of those goods is an offence.

Exercise care in such cases. Consider whether the receiver is liable as a party to the false representation or obtaining by deception instead. The receiver can be charged if they received it in bad faith or knew of the defect in title.

Hire purchase example:
Where goods are purchased on hire purchase, title is not obtained until the full amount is paid (i.e. title remains with the complainant/owner).

Therefore, if a deposit is made on a hire purchase by A through a false representation, then possession only is obtained. If A then sells the item to B, with B having guilty knowledge, then B can be guilty of the offence of Receiving, as B has no title.

Where title is obtained by deception, fraud, duress or misrepresentation it will be “voidable title”. If an innocent purchaser buys goods obtained by a deception, before title has been avoided, then he or she is entitled to a good title.

Question 28

Obtained by deception or theft by conversion?

Answer 28

The difference between theft and obtaining by deception hinges on the concepts of:
* possession
* ownership.

If someone has gained something by deception, the owner or person with a special interest in the property has freely given the offender possession and/or ownership of the property. (Note, however, that the title may be a voidable title only.) If someone has gained property by way of theft, they have taken it without the owner’s knowledge or consent and so they have only possession of the property and never title or ownership of it.

The crux of theft, ‘taking’, does not include obtaining ownership, possession of, or control over any property with the consent of the person from whom it is obtained. However, a subsequent ‘conversion’ of anything in which possession is obtained by deception may be theft (see s219 of the Crimes Act 1961).

Where goods are obtained on ‘hire’ by a false representation, the offence committed is deception. However, if the offender later sells the hired goods to another, they commit theft by conversion.

Question 29

What is theft by person in special relationship

Answer 29

Crimes act 1961, section 220

Theft by person in special relationship

(1) This section applies to any person who has received or is in possession of, or has control over, any property on terms or in circumstances that the person knows require the person—
(a) to account to any other person for the property, or for any proceeds arising from the property; or
(b) to deal with the property, or any proceeds arising from the property, in accordance with the requirements of any other person.

(2) Every one to whom subsection (1) applies commits theft who intentionally fails to account to the other person as so required or intentionally deals with the property, or any proceeds of the property, otherwise than in accordance with those requirements.

(3) This section applies whether or not the person was required to deliver over the identical property received or in the person’s possession or control.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is a question of law whether the circumstances required any person to account or to act in accordance with any requirements.

7 years

Question 30

What are examples of someone who has committed theft by special relationship?

Answer 30

This means that there may be an offence under s220 where the defendant has intentionally:
* failed to account to any other person for property received by the defendant
* failed to account to any other person for the proceeds of property received by the defendant
* dealt with property received by the defendant otherwise than in accordance with the requirements of some other person
* dealt with the proceeds of the property received by the defendant otherwise than in accordance with the requirements of some other person.

Question 31

When is forgery complete?

Answer 31

Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with the intent described in subsection (1) or with the knowledge and intent described in subsection

Forgery is complete even though the false document may be incomplete, or may not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law, if it is so made and is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted upon as genuine.

You do not need to intend that a particular person will be affected by the forged document. Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with knowledge and intent.

The use of such a document is a separate offence, namely ‘using forged documents’ (see page 50).

Question 32

What is a false document?

Answer 32

means a document—

(a) of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by any person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person; or

(b) of which the whole or any material part purports to be made by or on behalf of any person who did not authorise its making, or on behalf of a fictitious person; or

(c) of which the whole or any material part has been altered, whether by addition, insertion, deletion, obliteration, erasure, removal, or otherwise, and that purports to have been altered by or on behalf of a person who did not alter it or authorise its alteration, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or

(d) that is, in whole or in part, a reproduction of any other document, and that purports to have been made by or on behalf of a person who did not make it or authorise its making, or by or on behalf of a fictitious person; or

(e) that is made in the name of a person, either by that person or by that person’s authority, with the intention that it should pass as being made by some other person who did not make it, or by a fictitious person.

Example
A print of a forged Goldie painting is not a forgery – only the original forgery claiming to be an unforged original constitutes a forgery.

Question 33

What is material alteration for forgery?

Answer 33

You can make a false document by making any material alteration to a genuine document. Under section 256, Forgery , such alterations might involve:
* additions
* insertions
* deletions
* obliterations
* erasures
* removal of material or otherwise.

An alteration is a material alteration if it increases the value or negotiability of a document or instrument. A false document can be made by making material alterations to a genuine document.

Question 34

Is a photocopy a forgery?

Answer 34

A photocopy of a false document claims merely to be a copy and, therefore, does not ‘tell a lie about itself’.

Question 35

Is intent to deceive required for forgery?

Answer 35

Intent to deceive is not an essential element of forgery. Nonetheless, the prosecution must prove that, at the time of the alleged act, the defendant, knowing that the document was false, had intended either:
* to use the false document to obtain, or
* that the false document be used or acted on as genuine
It is not enough that the document is false and that its maker knows it is false. It must also be proved that the offender intended to deceive by means of that which is false.

Question 36

What are examples of forgery?

Answer 36

• Writing an examination paper in the name of another person who is required to sit the exam.
• Pre-dating a deed to give it priority over another.
• Forging letters of recommendation for inclusion in a CV that are necessary to obtain a position.
• Falsely completing a statement of service on a witness summons.

Question 37

What must you prove for using a forged document?

Answer 37

You must prove that the defendant knew the document was a forgery the time of the physical act of using, dealing with or acting upon it.

However, it is not sufficient just to prove that they knew the document was false. To prove that the document is a forgery, you must prove that::
* the document was false
* the ‘user’ knew that the document had been ‘made’ with the knowledge and intent required under section 256 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Question 38

When is the offence of altering or reproducing documents complete?

Answer 38

An offence against subsection (1) is complete as soon as the alteration or document is made with the intent referred to in that subsection, although the offender may not have intended that any particular person should—
(a) use or act upon the document altered or made; or
(b) act on the basis of the absence of the document concealed or destroyed; or
(c) be induced to do or refrain from doing anything.

Question 39

What are the mental elements of altering a document?

Answer 39

In relation to both subsections there are two alternative mental elements. The first is an intention to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit or valuable consideration. There must be an intention to obtain by deception. The alternative mental element is an intention to cause loss.

There is no requirement the loss is intended to be inflicted by deception. Thus the simple destruction of a document so as to deprive another of something of value might fall within the section. (It might also fall within the ambit of theft under s 219.)

Question 40

Whats the difference between forgery vs altering

Answer 40

The differences between the offences of forgery and altering or reproducing a document rest in the varying definitions of ‘document’ and ‘intent’.

With forgery, an intent to deceive only is required, not an intent to obtain by deception.

In the offence of altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing a document, you must prove that the offender intended to obtain by deception.

Question 41

What are the three mental elements for using an altered document?

Answer 41

Firstly, the defendant must know the relevant matters relating to the
document in question — that is, that the document had been altered with
intent to deceive.

Secondly, the defendant must have intended by the employment of the
document, or by causing another to use or rely on it, to obtain by deception
any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit or valuable
consideration or to cause loss to any other person. It must be remembered
that “obtain” here carries the extended meaning provided in s 217 so that an
intention to retain such property will suffice.

Thirdly, there must be an intention to acquire or retain the property etc, or to
cause loss, “by deception”. This key word is not defined for the purpose of
this section, but assistance can be derived from the definition in s 240.

Question 42

What is accessing a computer system without authorisation

Answer 42

Crimes Act 1961, section 252

(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.

A person is not required to be physically present in order to access a
computer system.

Question 43

What is required to prove a ‘false representation?’

Answer 43

To prove a false representation:
* that there was an intent to deceive
* that there was a representation by the defendant
* that the representation was false; and that the defendant either:
* knew it to be false in a material particular OR
* was reckless whether it was false in a material particular.

Question 44

How can you avoid title?

Answer 44

Title can be avoided by:
1. Communication to B. The taking of all possible steps to bring it to B’s notice, eg
by writing a letter, text, phone call etc.
2. By advising the police that the vehicle was obtained by fraud.

Question 45

When is forgery complete?

Answer 45

Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with the intent described in
subsection (1) of section 256 or with the knowledge and intent described in subsection (2).

Question 46

What is DEMAEDA

Answer 46

Deliver over
Endorse
Make
Accept
Execute
Destroy
Alter

Question 47

What is the subjective v objective text held in Cameron v R?

Answer 47

Part (a) of the Cameron test is completely subjective. A “real possibility” is substantively the same as something that “could well happen” formally the leading case on the Recklessness test. Both merely require that the defendant has recognised the risk the offence anticipates as being possible. The defendant does not need to consider the risk significant.

Part (b) is subjective and objective. It looks at whether the defendant’s actions were objectively reasonable given the risk the defendant understood. The Supreme Court in Cameron held that if the actions of the defendant have no social utility, the running of any risk subjectively appreciated is unreasonable and thus reckless. Where there is some social utility in the actions of the defendant, whether those actions were unreasonable will depend on “whether a reasonable and prudent person would have taken the risk”.

Question 48

Do Serious Fraud Office have a power of arrest?

Answer 48

No power of arrest, they prosecute and investigation financial crime

Question 49

You are investigating a cheque fraud series where the account has been opened and a chequebook obtained using fictious details. Apart from the normal bank enquiries in relation to cheque offences, list four possible enquiries you should make regarding the offender opening the account with the bank?

Answer 49

• The account number and the date the account was opened
• The nature and amount of the first deposit and details of any other deposits
• The details the offender used when the account was opened
• CCTV or photographs of the offender
• Obtain descriptions of the suspect and any of their associates or vehicles at the time.
• Obtain a sample of the suspect’s handwritting from bank documents.
• The details of the employee who opened the account and any other employees who can identify the suspect – Interview these employees and obtain statements
• The serial numbers of the cheques supplied
• See if the cheques are being spent in a pattern or at the same store or types of stores
• See if any other banks have the same problem or if any other police stations or fraud squads are holding related complaints and information.

Question 50

What are four things MBIE can assist with for an investigation?

Answer 50

Possible sources of information are:

Registrar of Companies.
Companies Office.
Official assignee.
Insolvency Services.

Question 51

What is the difference between forgery and altering etc reproduction of a document?

Answer 51

• The differences between the offences of forgery and altering or reproducing a document rest in the varying definitions of “document” and “intent”.
• With forgery, an intent to deceive only is required, not an intent to obtain by deception. In the offence of altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing a document, you must prove that the offender intended to obtain by deception.
• Any document can be altered or reproduced in the charge of altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing a document. However in the charge of forgery, the document must be a “false document” as defined in section 225 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Question 52

A senior executive of a company acting on behalf of the company causes loss to other companies, who is held criminally liable?

Answer 52

Both the senior executive and the company as the actions of the executive are said to be the actions and state of mind of the company

Question 53

Dishonest access of a computer what is required to prove this?

Answer 53

A person can only be charged under section 249(1) in relation to accessing a computer system for dishonest purpose when
- He/She actually obtained any property, or privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit or valuable consideration or loss to any other person.

Question 54

List 4 things the judge may consider re the probative value of propensity evidence

Answer 54

(3) When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge may consider, among other matters, the following:
(a) the frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred:
(b) the connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(c) the extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(d) the number of persons making allegations against the defendant that are the same as, or are similar to, the subject of the offence for which the defendant is being tried:
(e) whether the allegations described in paragraph (d) may be the result of collusion or suggestibility:
(f) the extent to which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried are unusual.

Frequency, connection in time, extent of similarity, number of person making allegations