跳至內容
主選單
主選單
移至側邊欄
隱藏
導覽
首頁
最近修改
新手使用指南
隨機頁面
貢獻分數
建立新頁面
工具
上傳檔案
特殊頁面
搜尋
搜尋
建立賬號
登入
個人工具
暗色模式
建立賬號
登入
用於已登出編輯者的頁面
了解更多
貢獻
討論
正在編輯
用戶:Hinnia/Fraud
(章節)
用戶頁面
討論
香港繁體
閱讀
編輯
編輯原始碼
檢視歷史
工具
工具
移至側邊欄
隱藏
操作
閱讀
編輯
編輯原始碼
檢視歷史
一般
連結至此的頁面
相關變更
用戶貢獻
日誌
檢視使用者群組
特殊頁面
頁面資訊
取得短網址
警告:
您尚未登入。 若您進行任何的編輯您的 IP 位址將會被公開。 若您
登入
或
建立帳號
,您的編輯將會以您的使用者名稱標示,並能擁有另外的益處。
防垃圾訊息檢查用。
請勿
填寫此欄位!
== Fraud – Structure and Common Elements == === Fraud Act 2006, s 1 === Section 1: * A person is guilty of '''fraud''' if they are in breach of '''any''' of the following: ** s 2 – fraud by '''false representation''' ** s 3 – fraud by '''failing to disclose information''' ** s 4 – fraud by '''abuse of position''' Maximum sentence for fraud (any variant): * On indictment: up to '''10 years’ imprisonment''' or a fine (or both). * On summary conviction: up to '''12 months''' or a fine (or both). Empirical context from the handout: * Crime Survey for England and Wales (year ending June 2019): approx '''3.86 million fraud offences''' against adults. * 2012–13 ONS figures: ** Approx '''58,000''' cases under s 2 ** Approx '''200''' cases under s 3 ** Approx '''1,000''' cases under s 4 Section 1 establishes a '''single offence''' of fraud, committed by '''three alternative modes'''. === Common elements in all three fraud variants (ss 2–4.) === Two '''core mental elements''' that are common to '''all''' three types of fraud: # '''Dishonesty''' #* Defined according to '''Ivey v Genting''', as adopted in Barton & Booth (see theft/dishonesty notes). #* Unlike theft, there is '''no equivalent of Theft Act s 2''' in the Fraud Act, so there are no statutory “safe harbours”: everything turns on '''Ivey‑style dishonesty'''. # '''Intention to make a gain or cause loss / risk of loss''' #* Each fraud offence requires that D '''intends''', by the relevant conduct (misrepresentation, failure to disclose, abuse of position): #** To '''make a gain''' for themselves or another; or #** To '''cause loss''' to another; or #** To '''expose another to a risk of loss'''. This intention is central to how fraud differs from the '''old law of deception'''. === “Actual causation” vs “intended causation” === Old offence: '''obtaining property by deception''' * Required: ** Property to be '''obtained''', and ** The property to be obtained '''“by deception”''' (actual causation between deception and obtaining). New law: '''fraud (ss 2–4)''' * '''Property need not be obtained''' at all. * '''No one need actually be deceived'''. * However: ** There must be an '''intention to make a gain / cause loss by''': *** Making the representation (s 2); or *** Failing to disclose (s 3); or *** Abusing the position (s 4). This is described in the handout as '''“causation in the head”'''. Illustrations: * '''Example – O’Leary''' EWCA Crim 1371 ** D falsely tells an elderly woman with dementia: “As we agreed, I did some work on your roof two months ago. Can I trouble you for payment?” ** D aims to secure payment '''by means of this lie'''. ** Fraud is complete '''even if''' she never pays: the key is D’s '''intention to gain by the misrepresentation'''. Two thought‑experiments: # '''Intended causation present''' #* D lies on parts of a loan form, '''believing''' those answers will be seen by the decision‑maker and affect the decision. #* Even if, in reality, those answers are only for market research and not used by the lender, there is still fraud: #** D '''intended''' to gain the loan '''by means of''' the lies. # '''Intended causation absent''' #* D believes (wrongly) that questions on the '''last page''' are '''only for market research''' and will '''not''' be seen by the decision‑maker. #* Lies on those questions. #* In fact, the lender does look at those answers and grants the loan '''on the strength of them'''. #* '''No fraud''' – D had '''no intention to gain by those particular lies''', even though they in fact caused the decision. Case confirming importance of intended causation: * '''Gilbert''' EWCA Crim 2392 ** Company director falsely stated that the company was backed by family money to persuade a bank to open an account. ** Convicted of fraud by false representation. ** Court of Appeal quashed the conviction: *** Jury should have been directed that she must be shown to have '''intended to make a gain by that misrepresentation'''. *** Suggested any later profits from using the bank account might be '''too remote''' from the lie. '''Key exam point:''' For all three fraud variants, always ask: * What '''exact gain/loss''' did D intend? * Did D intend to achieve that result '''by''' the misrepresentation / non‑disclosure / abuse?
摘要:
請注意,所有於合眾百科 Unitedbook所做的貢獻會依據CC BY-NC-SA(創用CC 姓名標示─非商業性─相同方式分享)授權條款發佈(詳情請見
合眾百科:版權
)。若您不希望您的著作被任意修改與散佈,請勿在此發表文章。
您同時向我們保證在此的著作內容是您自行撰寫,或是取自不受版權保護的公開領域或自由資源。
請勿在未經授權的情況下發表文章!
取消
編輯說明
(在新視窗開啟)
切換限制內容寬度