Law on Fraud and Criminal Damage
Law on Fraud and Criminal Damage
Previous law under the fraud and deception was thought to be in a complete freeform. As a result Fraud Act 2006 was enacted, it repealed ss15, 15A, 15B, 16 and 20(2) of Theft Act 1968 and also ss 1 and 2 of the Theft Act 1978. These offences were replaced with offence of fraud and it can be committed in different ways such as, fraud by false representation and obtaining services dishonestly.
Fraud by false representation is covered under the s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Actus reus of the offence is that defendant must make false representation and also mens rea contains three parts to it. Defendant must be dishonest, or must know or believe the representation to be untrue or misleading and there must be an intention to make a gain or cause loss.
There are different section covered under the representation and the Fraud Act provides some help by the meaning of the representation, s 2(3) states ‘’representation’ means any representation as to fact or law, including making a representation as to the state of mind of – (a) the person making the representation or (b) any other person.’ By containing a different section under the representation it becomes easier to be recognised with the right lawful Act. Representation to machines can be made to a person or to a machine s 2(5) covers all devices and system, it’s also designed to cover the many situations in the modern world where it’s possible to obtain property via a machine or the internet or any other automated system. Express representation makes it clear that there are no limits on the way in which the representation should be expressed. It points out that it could be written, spoken or posted on a website. The last section that covers representation is implied representation, it contains many ways in which it’s possible to make an implied representation through conduct. In DPP V Ray (1937) case, defendant went to the restaurant with his three friends and he knew he don’t have
Previous law under the fraud and deception was thought to be in a complete freeform. As a result Fraud Act 2006 was enacted, it repealed ss15, 15A, 15B, 16 and 20(2) of Theft Act 1968 and also ss 1 and 2 of the Theft Act 1978. These offences were replaced with offence of fraud and it can be committed in different ways such as, fraud by false representation and obtaining services dishonestly.
Fraud by false representation is covered under the s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Actus reus of the offence is that defendant must make false representation and also mens rea contains three parts to it. Defendant must be dishonest, or must know or believe the representation to be untrue or misleading and there must be an intention to make a gain or cause loss.
There are different section covered under the representation and the Fraud Act provides some help by the meaning of the representation, s 2(3) states ‘’representation’ means any representation as to fact or law, including making a representation as to the state of mind of – (a) the person making the representation or (b) any other person.’ By containing a different section under the representation it becomes easier to be recognised with the right lawful Act. Representation to machines can be made to a person or to a machine s 2(5) covers all devices and system, it’s also designed to cover the many situations in the modern world where it’s possible to obtain property via a machine or the internet or any other automated system. Express representation makes it clear that there are no limits on the way in which the representation should be expressed. It points out that it could be written, spoken or posted on a website. The last section that covers representation is implied representation, it contains many ways in which it’s possible to make an implied representation through conduct. In DPP V Ray (1937) case, defendant went to the restaurant with his three friends and he knew he don’t have