Fraud: by false representation, by abuse of position, by failing to disclose

Topic

Fraud: By False Representation, By Abuse of Position, By Failing to Disclose

Fraud, as defined under the Fraud Act 2006, encompasses a range of deceptive practices aimed at unlawfully gaining a financial advantage or causing loss to another. The Act specifies three primary categories of fraud: by false representation, by abuse of position, and by failing to disclose information. Each type involves different methods of deception and carries serious legal consequences.

Fraud by False Representation

Fraud by false representation occurs when a person dishonestly makes a false statement, intending to make a gain or cause a loss to another. The essential elements include:

  • False Representation: The representation can be made explicitly or implicitly and must be false or misleading. It can relate to fact, law, or a person's state of mind.
  • Dishonesty: The defendant must know that the representation is false or misleading and act dishonestly according to the standards of reasonable and honest people.
  • Intention to Gain or Cause Loss: There must be an intent to make a financial gain for oneself or another, or to cause a financial loss or risk of loss to another.

Case Law: R v. Jones (2007)

In R v. Jones, the defendant was convicted of fraud by false representation for using a stolen credit card to make purchases. The court held that the use of the card constituted a false representation that the defendant was authorized to use it, fulfilling the elements required under the Fraud Act 2006.

Fraud by Abuse of Position

Fraud by abuse of position involves a person who occupies a position of trust and abuses it to commit fraud. The key elements include:

  • Position of Trust: The defendant must hold a position in which they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another, such as a fiduciary or a corporate officer.
  • Abuse of Position: The defendant abuses this position, either by action or omission, in a way that is dishonest.
  • Intention to Gain or Cause Loss: The defendant intends by the abuse of their position to make a gain for themselves or another, or to cause loss or expose another to the risk of loss.

Example: Fraud by Abuse of Position in a Corporate Setting

An accountant in a company deliberately falsifies financial records to siphon funds into a personal account. By abusing their position of trust, they commit fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, intending to gain financially while causing a loss to the company.

Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information

Fraud by failing to disclose arises when a person fails to disclose information that they are legally obligated to disclose, with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss. The elements include:

  • Legal Duty to Disclose: The defendant must have a legal duty to disclose specific information. This duty can arise from statute, contract, or the nature of the relationship between the parties.
  • Failure to Disclose: The defendant knowingly fails to disclose the required information.
  • Dishonesty and Intent: The failure to disclose must be done dishonestly, with the intent to make a gain or cause a loss.

Case Law: R v. Razoq (2011)

In R v. Razoq, the defendant, a solicitor, failed to disclose that he was struck off the roll of solicitors and continued to act for clients. This failure to disclose crucial information was deemed fraudulent as it was done to continue benefiting financially from legal fees, fulfilling the criteria under the Fraud Act 2006.

Conclusion

Fraud, under the Fraud Act 2006, addresses various deceptive practices that aim to secure financial gain or cause financial loss. The specific offences of fraud by false representation, abuse of position, and failing to disclose information are differentiated by the nature of the deceit involved. Each requires a demonstration of dishonesty and an intent to gain or cause loss. Legal practitioners must carefully assess the evidence against the statutory definitions and ensure that all elements are satisfied to substantiate charges of fraud. Understanding these nuances is critical for appropriately navigating the complexities of fraud cases and ensuring just outcomes in legal proceedings.

SQE 2 Prep Course

Get Started