Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 15B was repealed on the same date [2] by sections 14(1) and (3) and 15(1) of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to, and Schedule 3 to, the Fraud Act 2006. The purpose of this offence was to fill the lacuna in the law identified by the decision in R v Preddy and Slade, R v Dhillon . [ 3 ]
(3) For the purposes of this section "deception" has the same meaning as in section 15 of this Act. This offence replaced the offence of obtaining credit by fraud, contrary to section 13(1) of the Debtors Act 1869. [4] The elements of the actus reus are similar to the offence of obtaining property by deception: There must be a deception.
Deception offences include situations where the defendant represents that counterfeited goods are genuine items, or misrepresents their identity (e.g., R v Barnard, [11] where the defendant represented that he was a student to an Oxford bookshop to qualify for their scheme of discounting books to students), or asserts that an envelope contains ...
Fraud can violate civil law (e.g., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary compensation) or criminal law (e.g., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities), or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or ...
In law, fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. [1]
c. 1) was enacted by Parliament that made it a misdemeanor to obtain property by a false token or a counterfeit letter "made in any other man's name." [9] This statute did not cover obtaining property by the use false spoken words. [9] The first "modern" false pretence statute, the Obtaining Money by False Pretences, etc. Act 1757 (30 Geo. 2. c.
The offence of obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968, was specifically enacted to remove the problem caused by R v Preddy and Slade, R v Dhillon. [10] This case held that there no section 15 offence was committed when the defendant caused transfers between the victim's and his own bank account by ...
This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in Deception (criminal law) and Obtaining property by deception#By any deception). The defendant must obtain a service as defined in section 1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the ...