正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Fraud （章節）

=== “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?