- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case-Law Nathan (1997) & Money Transfer Fraud
I. Case Summary: Nathan (1997)
I. Case Summary: Nathan (1997)
- Facts:
- D, a solicitor, applied for a loan on behalf of his client, making false representations about its purpose.
- Loan transferred electronically to D's client account.
- D charged with obtaining property by deception.
- D's Appeal Grounds:
- Preddy precedent: Electronic transfer of money between bank accounts does not constitute obtaining property by deception.
- Obtaining services by deception: Cannot be substituted, as the banking facility was provided to his client, not himself.
- Court Ruling:
- Crown's argument that the credit balance belonged to the bank until transferred to the client was untenable. It was held jointly by the solicitor (as trustee) and the bank.
- Conviction for obtaining property by deception quashed due to the Preddy precedent.
- Conviction for obtaining services by deception (s1 of the Theft Act 1978) substituted. The service need not be obtained directly for the defendant himself.
- Difficulties in prosecuting electronic transfer fraud: Pre-existing legislation struggled to adequately address situations where money was transferred electronically, specifically in defining what "property" was obtained.
- The Preddy Effect: Preddy raised significant challenges in prosecuting these types of fraud under existing legislation.
- Creation of a New Offence: Dishonestly obtaining a money transfer for oneself or another by deception.
- Source: Introduced by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
- Purpose: Specifically designed to address the gap in legislation exposed by cases like Preddy and Nathan.
- Definition of Money Transfer: Explicitly covers situations involving a debit from one account and a corresponding credit to another.
0 Comments