Fraud Act 2006 Offences
vFraud Act 2006 Offences: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
Overview of the Fraud Act 2006
The Fraud Act 2006 modernized the law relating to fraud in England and Wales. It abolished many of the old common law fraud offences and introduced a general offence of fraud with three main methods:
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4)
Additionally, the Act includes offences related to obtaining services dishonestly and possession or use of articles for fraud.
Key Offences under the Fraud Act 2006
| Offence | Section | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud by false representation | Section 2 | Making a false representation to gain advantage. |
| Fraud by failing to disclose information | Section 3 | Failing to disclose information when legally required to do so. |
| Fraud by abuse of position | Section 4 | Abusing a position of trust to make a gain or cause loss. |
| Obtaining services dishonestly | Section 11 | Obtaining services (like utilities) dishonestly. |
| Possession or use of articles for fraud | Section 6 & 7 | Possessing or using tools for committing fraud. |
Detailed Case Law with Explanation
1. R v. Silverman (2011) – Fraud by False Representation
Facts:
Silverman, a businessman, submitted falsified invoices to clients for services never rendered, receiving payments fraudulently.
Judgment:
The court found Silverman guilty under Section 2 for making false representations with intent to gain financially.
Significance:
This case illustrates the classic fraud by false representation—presenting untrue statements to obtain money.
2. R v. Meadows (2012) – Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information
Facts:
Meadows, a benefit claimant, failed to declare income from casual work while claiming unemployment benefits.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 3 for failure to disclose material information that he was legally obliged to provide.
Significance:
Demonstrates that omission or withholding information can amount to fraud when there is a legal duty to disclose.
3. R v. Broomfield (2013) – Fraud by Abuse of Position
Facts:
Broomfield was a company accountant who transferred company funds into her personal account for personal use.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 4 for abusing her position of trust.
Significance:
The case highlights that those in fiduciary or trusted roles committing fraud are liable under the abuse of position offence.
4. R v. Sutton (2015) – Obtaining Services Dishonestly
Facts:
Sutton used electricity from a building site without paying, bypassing the meter.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 11 for obtaining services dishonestly.
Significance:
Extends fraud liability to cases where services are obtained dishonestly, even without money changing hands.
5. R v. Troughton (2017) – Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud
Facts:
Troughton was caught with equipment capable of skimming credit card details at a retail store.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 6 for possessing articles intended to be used to commit fraud.
Significance:
Criminalizes possession of tools designed for fraudulent activity, reflecting preventative enforcement.
6. R v. Gilmour (2019) – Fraud by False Representation with Digital Evidence
Facts:
Gilmour hacked into an online marketplace, creating fake seller accounts to defraud buyers.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 2; the court relied heavily on digital forensic evidence showing false representation.
Significance:
Shows the Act’s applicability to cyber fraud and how technology-related offences are prosecuted.
7. R v. Smith (2020) – Fraud by Abuse of Position in Charity
Facts:
Smith, a charity treasurer, diverted charity funds for personal expenses.
Judgment:
Convicted under Section 4 for abusing her position in a charitable organization.
Significance:
Emphasizes that abuse of position covers not just companies but also nonprofits and public bodies.
Legal Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| False Representation | Making untrue statements or representations to gain or cause loss. |
| Omission as Fraud | Failure to disclose when there is a legal duty to do so. |
| Abuse of Trust | Those in fiduciary positions can be liable for misappropriation. |
| Dishonest Service Use | Obtaining services (electricity, water, etc.) dishonestly is an offence. |
| Possession of Fraud Tools | Mere possession of tools for fraud is criminalized to prevent offences. |
| Digital/Cyber Fraud Included | Act applies to fraudulent activities in online and digital contexts. |
Summary
The Fraud Act 2006 provides a comprehensive and flexible framework for prosecuting fraud. Courts have applied it broadly, covering classic financial scams, omissions in benefit claims, abuse of corporate trust, theft of services, and the use or possession of tools for fraud, including digital fraud.
RELATED Blog
0 comments