9084 · 2.2.8
Fraud as defined in the Fraud Act 2006 — FAQ
Frequently asked questions for 9084 Fraud as defined in the Fraud Act 2006. Direct answers first, then deeper explanation — then practise with marking.
Does someone actually have to be deceived or lose money for a fraud offence to be committed?
No. The fraud offences under the 2006 Act are 'conduct' crimes. The offence is complete as soon as the defendant performs the prohibited act (e.g., makes the false representation) with the required dishonest intent. The result is irrelevant, so it does not matter if no one was deceived or if no actual gain or loss occurred.
What is the current test for dishonesty in fraud cases?
The test for dishonesty is the objective one established by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]. The two-stage test asks: 1) What was the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts? 2) Given that knowledge or belief, was their conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people?
Can you commit fraud by doing nothing?
Yes. Fraud can be committed by an omission in two of the three ways. Under s.3 (failing to disclose), the entire actus reus is an omission – the failure to provide information when under a legal duty to do so. Under s.4 (abuse of position), the 'abuse' can be an omission, for example, failing to correctly invest funds as you are required to do by your position of trust.