- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Graham (1996) CA: Deception, Theft, and Evasion of Liability
- Case Overview: A solicitor (D) submitted a fraudulent mortgage application. The mortgage was never completed. D was convicted of obtaining property by deception. The appeal considered alternative charges: theft and evasion of liability.
- Preddy's Impact: If Preddy (a previous case concerning obtaining property by deception) ruled out the obtaining property by deception charge, it likely also impacts the theft charge.
- Chose in Action:
- Theft charge requires showing that the chose in action was appropriated while belonging to another.
- Unlikely in this case: D's actions likely created a new chose in action, rather than appropriating an existing one.
- There may be issues in identifying an act of "appropriation."
- Unrealistic Charge: The court found a charge of evasion of liability (remitting the lender's bank's liability to the lender) to be unrealistic.
- Viable Alternative: D could have been charged with false accounting.
- Service Definition: The earlier ruling in Halai (1983), which stated a mortgage advance could not be described as a service, is no longer good law and should not be followed.
0 Comments