2.  Before the Fraud Act 2006, the offence
of fraud was governed under the Theft
Act 1968 and 1978
› S15 Theft Act 1968: obtaining property by
deception
› S15A Theft Act 1968: obtaining money
transfer by deception
› S16 Theft Act 1968: obtaining pecuniary
(monetary) advantages by deception

3.  Before the Fraud Act 2006, the offence
of fraud was governed under the Theft
Act 1968 and 1978
› S1 Theft Act 1978: obtaining services by
deception
› S2 Theft Act 1978: evading liability by
deception

4.  Theft Act 1968 & 1978 gave rise to
several problems
 There was a requirement for an element
of operative deception and this limited
the application of fraud
 With the introduction of machinery also
came the question on if machines can
be subject to deception

5.  In the case of Royle 1971, LJ Edmund-
Davis described the provisions of fraud to
be a ‘nightmarish’
 The Law Commission describe the old
law as having the following problems
› Too many offences
› Too much overlap between offences
› Too much technicality etc

6.  Therefore they decided to repeal the
deception based offences and enact
the Fraud Act 2006
 This was deliberately widely drafted to
ensure it could avoid technicality

7.  S1; offence of fraud committed by
breaching S2, 3 or 4 (various types of
fraud)
 S2; fraud by false representation
 S3; fraud by failure to disclose info
 S4; fraud by abuse of position
 S1(3); sanction
 S11; obtaining services dishonestly

8.  One section from the Theft Act 1978
remains valid
 S3 Theft Act 1978; making off without
payment

9.  This is the main provision that describes
the offence of fraud
 It states fraud can be committed in a
number of listed ways
 It must the section that a person is
convicted under
 Section 2, 3 and 4 must be supported by
Section 1

10.  A person convicted of fraud may be
guilty under
› (a) summary conviction: 12 months; fine;
both
› (b) indictment: imprisonment not exceeding
10 years; fine; both
 Only applicable to S1

11.  S2(1); when defendant dishonestly
makes false representation with intention
to gain for himself of cause a loss or
possibility of a loss to another

12.  S2(2)(a); false is when the statement is
untrue or misleading
 S2(2)(b); defendant must know that
statement is misleading or is reckless as
to if it is untrue or misleading

13.  S2(3); representation can be a
representation of
› Fact
› Law
› Another’s state of mind
 S2(4); can be express or implied (can be
committed via omission/silence)
 S2(5); if submitted through a device
designed to communicate information, it
will be implied that it is representation

14.  S5(2); gain or loss is defined as
permanent or temporary attainment or
dispossession of money or property
 S5(3); gain includes keeping ‘item’
 S5(4); loss includes not getting ‘item’
 This intention is to be observed through
the virtual certainty test
 Dishonesty is to be determined by the
Ghosh test

15.  Ray and friends went to restaurant and
ordered meal
 Ray realised he did not have enough
money to pay and friend offered to lend
 After eating, they decided to run off
 Lord Morris said that he had indicated his
honest intention to pay but subsequently
forms a dishonest intention. In his original
intention is a representation that this
intention will continue throughout.

16.  There was an implied representation
when they sat at the restaurant that they
were going to pay
 This was deception and a dishonest
representation

17.  Defendant was granted an overdraft
limit of £100
 The bank was willing to honour any
cheque within £90
 Defendant issued cheques worth £750
 In issuing these cheques, he had made a
false implied representation to another
that he had the authority to issue the
cheques

18.  Defendant knew that her credit card
had exceeded its limit
 Continued use of the credit card was an
implied representation

19.  Defendant wrote 4 post-dated cheques
despite knowing bank would not honour
them
 Defendant made a dishonest implied
representation that the cheques would
be honoured by the bank

20.  Defendant rented out car despite
having been disqualified from driving
 In filling out a form, he indicated that he
had never been convicted for traffic
offences nor been disqualified from
driving
 Although he had never been convicted,
the answer to both questions was not no
 Therefore the defendant had through his
conduct impliedly made a false
representation

21.  Defendant requested Council to fix
bathroom for his home with his elderly
mother
 His mother died and he did not inform
the Council who went ahead with the
repairs under the impression the mother
was alive and living with him
 His omission to make known the change
of facts was a false representation

22.  S3; dishonestly fails to disclose
information required under his/her legal
duty and intends to by doing so gain for
himself/another or cause loss or possibility
of loss for another

23.  Law Commission Report 276/2002 listed
situations where one would have a legal
duty to disclose
› Statute
› Bona fide transactions
› Express/implied terms require so
› Customs
› Fiduciary relationship
 It is often where one acts in another’s
interest

24.  S4; dishonestly abuses position in which
one is expected to safeguard and not
act against another’s financial interest
and intends to, by doing so, gain for
himself/another or cause a loss or
possible loss for another

25.  Law Commission Report 276/2002 listed
situations where one would be in a
position to safeguard another’s interest
› Trustee-Beneficiary
› Director-Company
› Professional-Client
› Agent-Principal
› Employer-Employee
› Partners
› Family
› Parties not at arms length

26.  Abuse is not defined in the Fraud Act
2006
 It is vague and subject to position of
defendant
 S4(2); can be committed through
omission

27.  S11; an dishonest act and fraud by false
representation allows defendant to
obtain services for himself/another

28.  S11(2); services are obtained if
› (a) they are provided on the basis that
money has, shall or will be paid
› (b) defendant obtain them without paying
or paying in full
› (c) defendant knows or is reckless as to (a)
› Intend to not make payment or make only
partial payment

29.  S11(3); sanction
› (a) summary conviction: 12 months; fine;
both
› (b) indictment: imprisonment not exceeding
5 years; fine; both

30.  S3; dishonestly makes off without paying
as required/expected with intention to
avoid payment despite knowing that
payment is required/expected on the
spot

31.  Making off required defendant to leave
the place or a particular spot
 The intention to be found is an intention
to avoid payment permanently

32.  Aziz: no need to identify a specific spot in
which payment has to be made
 Vincent: possible to avoid conviction if
prior arrangement to pay later has been
made by defendant

33.  S8 Theft Act 1968; steals and immediately
before or at the time of theft, uses force
on any person or puts person in fear of
being subjected to force
 theft + extra AR (FORCE)

34.  Force is not defined in the act
 Seek definition in common law
 Any degree of pressure would suffice

35.  Defendant pulled shopping bags away
from woman
 Amounted to force
 No requirement to touch victim
 Force can be indirectly applied
 Force was applied on the property stolen

36.  Defendant nudged victim causing victim
to lose his balance and fall
 Held that a mere nudge will be sufficient
 Force does not need to be
overpowering

37.  Defendants broke into house to steal
 One went upstairs to look for items to
steal while the other tied up the owner
 Held that the appropriation was a
continuing act and at the time of
appropriation, force had been used
 The force was used to tie up the victim

38.  Defendant snatched handbag and ran
 But dropped it while running and made
off without picking it up
 Convicted of robbery nonetheless
 At the moment he had dropped the
bag, the offence of theft had occurred
and he did use force to snatch the bag

39.  Defendants stole beer from a shop and
used violence on the owner to escape
 Held appropriation is a continuing act
 Force used to escape will still be
considered as force used to steal as the
theft/appropriation is a continuing act
 Will not be completed until the escape
occurs

40.  S9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968; trespasser enters
building or part of it and intends to steal
anything, inflict GBH or criminal damage
 S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968; trespasser enters
building or part of it and steals or try to
steal something within it or inflicts GBH or
attempts to inflict GBH

41.  Defendant broke windows of a shop and
leaned in to steal items
 He had actually been standing outside
with his feet still outside the shop
 Argued he had not entered the building
at all
 Held that the entry need not be
substantial
 His leaning into shop was sufficient to be
entry

42.  B & S v Leathley 1979; container used as
storage unit. Was connected to
electricity and had been there for more
than 2 years. Held to be part of a
building
 Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings 1986;
lorries used as storage for 1 year but
were still kept on wheels. Held to be not
part of a building

43.  Defendants broke into parents home
and stole appliances
 Parents stated that they had the
permission to be in that home
 Court held that defendants had nullified
permission by stealing and were
considered trespassers

44.  S10 Theft Act 1968; burglary + firearm or
weapon or explosive