- 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.
- Published on
Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Cooke (1997) CA & Mortgage Fraud
I. Case Overview:
I. Case Overview:
- Case Name: Cooke (1997) CA
- Context: Appeal following mortgage fraud conviction after the Preddy case.
- Appellant: D (Convicted of Mortgage Fraud)
- Crown's Argument: Seeking to substitute the original charge with obtaining services by deception under s 1 of the Theft Act 1978.
- Specifically, arguing that the mortgage advance constituted obtaining services.
- Can a mortgage advance be considered "obtaining services" under s 1 of the Theft Act 1978 in a mortgage fraud case?
- Charge substitution permissible: The charge of obtaining services by deception is an appropriate substitute charge in a mortgage fraud case. This is partially influenced by negative comments made in Graham about the Hai case.
- Mortgage Advance as "Service": A mortgage advance by a financial institution can be considered a "service" if it meets the key criterion.
- Essential Criterion: A benefit must be conferred, which is that D obtains property that he can use, with the understanding that it will be paid for.
- Clarifies the applicability of s 1 of the Theft Act 1978 to mortgage fraud scenarios.
- Confirms that a mortgage advance can be classified as "obtaining services" if a benefit is received, thereby solidifying the basis for prosecuting mortgage fraud under this provision.
- Distinguishes Hai: This case effectively allows, for the right fact pattern, for the obtaining of a mortgage to be considered to be obtaining services.
- Connects with and considers the effect of Graham on understanding mortgage fraud cases.
- Naviede: (implied influence on reasoning - additional cases can be mentioned) - provides further context on obtaining services.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Naviede (1997) CA
I. Core Issue:
I. Core Issue:
- Whether credit fraud constitutes obtaining services by deception.
- Relates to obtaining credit facilities from two banks.
- Another Preddy appeal case.
- Connects to Halai, Graham, Cooke, and Cumming-John (1997).
- Halai established that a mortgage advance for private residence typically does not amount to a service.
- Key point: Benefit not conferred.
- Naviede clarifies Halai does not mean no mortgage advance ever constitutes a service.
- Emphasis on specific circumstances and terms of the advance.
- Naviede involved revolving credit, not a traditional mortgage.
- Despite the difference, the same authorities apply.
- Decisions in Graham, Cooke, and Cumming-John (1997) were not per curiam (not delivered by the whole court).
- Implication: Potentially less precedential weight.
- The provision of a credit facility can be a service.
- Circumstances of the credit arrangement are vital to determine if a service has occurred.
- Halai is limited to specific contexts of mortgage advances for private residences.
- 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.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Doukas (1978) CA - Going Equipped to Steal & Deception
I. Case Facts
I. Case Facts
- Defendant (D): Hotel waiter.
- Charge: Going equipped to steal (s 25 of the Theft Act 1968).
- Circumstances:
- D found with bottles of wine not sold by the hotel.
- D admitted to selling the wine to customers for personal profit.
- Whether D's deception was operative on customers who bought the wine.
- Operative deception required for conviction.
- Hypothetical Question for Customers:
- "Why did you buy this wine?" OR
- "If you had been told the truth, would you have bought the commodity?"
- Jury Decision: The jury must decide how a hypothetical customer would answer.
- Court's Conclusion: "In this case, the hypothetical customer would answer that he would not buy the wine if he knew of D's deception."
- Reasoning (per Lane LJ): If a customer was dissatisfied, they would have no recourse to the hotel.
- The prosecution must prove that the deception was a material factor in the customer's decision to purchase the goods.
- The court uses a hypothetical customer test to determine whether the deception would have influenced the purchase.
- Lack of recourse in case of dissatisfaction due to the deception is a significant factor.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Rozeik (1996) CA: Attribution of Knowledge in Deception
I. Case Summary
I. Case Summary
- Facts: Defendant (D) convicted of obtaining cheques by deception from finance companies. D provided false information about equipment acquired under hire purchase. Managers at finance companies may have known of the false representations.
- Trial Issue: Jury instructed to assume managers knew the representations were false and ignore them when deciding if the companies were deceived.
- D's Appeal: Argued that if the managers were not deceived, then the companies were not deceived, and no offence was committed.
- Attribution of Employee Knowledge:
- A company is only "fixed" with knowledge acquired by an employee if the employee has authority to act in the transaction in question.
- Exception: Employee Complicity in Fraud:
- If the employee is a party to the fraud, they are not acting with the authority of the company. Therefore, their knowledge of the fraud cannot be attributed to the company.
- Managers' Knowledge: Knowledge of the fraud acquired by the manager could NOT be attributed to the company IF the managers were proven (not assumed) to be actual parties to the fraud
- Outcome:
- Appeal allowed. If managers were NOT proven to be complicit, their knowledge could be attributed to the companies, meaning the companies were NOT deceived.
- Authority is Crucial: Employee's authority to act in the specific transaction is fundamental for attributing knowledge to the company.
- Fraudulent Employee Exception: An employee's knowledge cannot be attributed to the company if they are actively involved in perpetrating the fraud. This prevents a fraudulent employee from benefiting from their own deceit at the company's expense.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Miller (1992) - Obtaining Property by Deception
I. Facts of the Case:
I. Facts of the Case:
- Defendant (D): Drove an unlicensed taxi between Heathrow and Gatwick.
- Victim (V): Foreign traveler induced to ride due to false representations regarding licensing and reasonable charges.
- Deception: D charged 10x the normal fare.
- Victim's Awareness: V realized D was lying but felt obligated to pay.
- Whether D's lies caused V to part with money, despite V suspecting the deception at the time of payment.
- Holistic Approach: The court must consider the "whole story" to determine if the deception was operative.
- Focus on Causation: Multiple deceptions committed during the course of events caused V to hand over the money.
- Irrelevance of Final Suspicions: The fact that V suspected deception at the final moment of payment is irrelevant. The original deception induced him to agree to the price.
- Key Principle: Deception doesn't have to be the sole reason for the victim to part with their money, only a significant operative factor.
- Published on
KembaraXtra- Case Law-Coady (1996) - Obtaining Property by Deception
Case Facts:
Case Facts:
- Defendant (D): Served himself petrol at a self-service station.
- Deception: Instructed the assistant to charge the petrol to his former employer's account (no longer authorized).
- Initial Conviction: Obtaining property by deception.
- Appeal: Argued representation occurred after obtaining the petrol.
- When must the false representation occur in relation to obtaining the property to constitute the crime of obtaining property by deception?
- Timing is Crucial: The false representation must precede the obtaining of property to be "operative" (i.e., cause the obtaining).
- Application to Coady: The representation (charging to the former employer) occurred after the petrol was obtained.
- Rejection of "General Representation" Argument: The court rejected the argument that simply arriving at the petrol station implied a general representation of payment.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Large v Mainprize (1989) - Recklessness in Furnishing False Information
- Case Overview: A fisherman (D) was accused of recklessly furnishing false information about his catch weight.
- Fisherman's Obligation: D was required to submit a sales note detailing the weight of his catch to authorities.
- Under-reporting: His sales note under-reported his catch by approximately 50%.
- Explanation: D claimed the error was due to a miscalculation during conversion to kilograms using a calculator.
- Charge: D was charged under EC regulations with recklessly furnishing false information regarding his catch.
- Initial Outcome: D was not convicted.
- What constitutes recklessness in the context of furnishing false information?
- Appeal Outcome: The prosecution's appeal failed.
- Definition of Recklessness:
- Relied on the Cunningham definition.
- Recklessness means conscious indifference to truth or falsity.
- OR, foresight of the risk that the catch weight would be checked against documentation and indifference to, or willingness to run the risk.
- Justices' Discretion: The justices were entitled to find that the fisherman made a simple error.
- Lack of Recklessness: The Justices did not see that the fisherman acted recklessly as to the mistake.
- Published on
KembaraXtra - Case Law-King (1986) CA - Deception under s.15 Theft Act 1968I.
Key Issue: Deception under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968, specifically whether the false representation caused the obtaining of property.
II. Facts:
Key Issue: Deception under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968, specifically whether the false representation caused the obtaining of property.
II. Facts:
- Deception: D falsely claimed to be a tree surgeon.
- False Representation: D told V that four trees in her garden were dangerous and needed felling.
- Financial Gain: D offered to fell the trees for £470 cash.
- Intervention: Police informed while V withdrew cash, D arrested.
- Defense: D argued V was induced by work (felling), not the deception.
- Operative Cause: The key issue is whether the false representation was the operative cause in V obtaining the property (money).
- Question of Fact: This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury.
- Evidence Sufficient: In this case, there was "ample evidence" to suggest payment (if made) would have been a direct result of the false representation.
- Causation: Highlights the crucial element of causation in deception offences. The deception must actually induce the victim to part with property.
- Jury's Role: Emphasizes the jury's role in determining factual issues, particularly causation, in deception cases.
- Focus on Representation: Underscores that the focus is on the impact of the false representation, not just any other potential motivating factors.