Seminar 29 - Criminalising Lying - The Fraud Act 2006 by Claire Turner https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5 en-us 2016-10-11 10:20:57 UTC 2025-04-24 08:21:03 UTC hello@padlet.com Although there is much to welcome , the [Fraud] Act has the potential to create serious practical problems because of the excessive breadth of the offence and a lack of definition of key terms (Omerod 2006 193) claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257262 2019-03-14 11:26:45 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257262 claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257710 2019-03-14 11:28:16 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257710 claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257923 2019-03-14 11:29:02 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341257923 claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341258096 2019-03-14 11:29:35 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341258096 Good main points covered. More analysis of the areas which have not been adequately defined and the positive aspects of the Act eg protection of the vulnerable. claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341259172 2019-03-14 11:32:40 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341259172 Good. More emphasis on the areas which have not been defined - linking it to the question. More discussion concerning the aspects of the Act which are beneficial ie simplicity for the jury and protection of the vulnerable so that it acts as a deterrent to provide information or fail to provide information which is correct or act in a abuse of their position. claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341259552 2019-03-14 11:33:43 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341259552 Excellent on the 'buyer beware point' ie conflict with civil law. No requirement for the buyer to take responsibility for the purchase. More discussion on the positives of the Act - see above. claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341260156 2019-03-14 11:35:31 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341260156 Outline answer claire43 https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341260915 - Shift in emphasis - conduct crime irrespective of result
- Areas lack of definition
      - Falsity in s2(2) - ill defined - could it be an 'advertising puff' rather than a false statement?. 
       - Dishonesty - Ivey - problems Art 7. No equivalent section to s2(1) TA 68. LCR 155 and 276
        'Legal Duty' in section 3. Section 4 - precision of the duty - abuse is very wide. Potential defendants very wide - breach of any confidentiality agreement; public officials
       - Lack of definition leads to inconsistencies from one jury to the next and convictions based on irrelevancies.
- Liability for telling a lie - no need for lie to influence behaviour or to have resulted in loss. Too wide? Pressure on courts? Damaging prospects of an individual as liable for a dishonesty offence - justified for such a minimal action should not be classed as criminal? Justification - protection of the property rights of person which may or may not be jeopardised? No causal link between the criminal lie and the loss
- Caveat emptor - tramples over this principle - conflict with civil law.
-Problem in shunning civil law is that Fraud offences lack solid foundation.
-Reckless representations - no actual knowledge but a suspicion - liable
- Conclusion - 
Practical advantage - clearer expression of large scale criminality. Complex fraud cases more clearly understood by jurors. Avoids fragmented and factual chronologies to meet the technical requirements in previous legislation. Avoids the requirement for the jury to understand complex legal contractual issues eg custom and practise. Easier for the prosecution to establish a conviction
Disadvantage - Too broad and vague, art 7, no loss suffered so no need to protect. Reference to relevant articles/Lam Com reports if applica

  ]]> 2019-03-14 11:37:50 UTC https://padlet.com/claire43/ii2ifojkdpe5/wish/341260915