The Fraud Act 2006 in the UK Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

The Fraud Act 2006 in the UK - Essay Example In the UK, the Fraud Act 2006 came into force during January 2007, and it substituted the deception crimes included in the Theft Acts 1968-1996 with a more general offence of fraud, which can be done in the following ways namely fraud by failing to divulge information, fraud by dishonesty or deceitful representation and fraud by misuse of position and authority. The offence under the Frauds Act 2006 is punishable if charges are proved with a fine or with an imprisonment of ten years or with both. It is punishable by a fine not in excess of the statutory maximum or sentence for a period of not exceeding six months or with both. Under tort of deceit, a person may claim damages if the fraud committed is resulted in injury to the affected party. On the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, a contract may be voidable if it has been obtained by fraud. (Law & Martin 2009:240). Courts in England have not yet prepared to prescribe exactly what can be regarded as fraud. It is to be noted tha t the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) which was formed on the recommendation of the Roskill Report in 1984 had not taken into account the offence of fraud but recognised on an evocative manner, many fraud crimes which UK’s Home Office employs even today. (Ramage 2005:4). As on date, in UK, there exists no statutory offence of fraud and the Home Office of UK has set out some kind’s criminal activities that can be regarded as offences of fraud in â€Å"Counting Rules for Recording Crime.† According to a publication made by the Home Office in April 2003, describing the following as offences of â€Å"forgery and fraud.† Frauds by an individual include common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, fraudulent misappropriation of funds, obtaining a money transfer through credit card or cheque fraud under section 12 of the Theft Act 1987. (Ramage 2005:104).In Cronos Containers NV v Palatin, the defendants were Klamath Enterprises S A and Mr. and Mrs. Palatin. The shares of Klamath were owned by Mr. Palatin. In 1994, Mr.Palatin deceived the plaintiff by making five different payments from one of the Plaintiff’s clients, and the same was credited into Barclays bank account owned by Paladins. Then, such defrauded sums were employed by the defendants to renovate a property held by Klamath. (Ramage 2005:4). Conspiracy to Defraud Under Common Law It falls under consent to divest deceitfully somebody’s right or to abuse somebody’s property privilege. In Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner2, S agreed with workers of a cinema theatre to take copies of cinema screened in that theatre without the approval of the owner with an objective of commercial distribution held to be a conspiracy to defraud under common law. In Wai Yu-Tsang v R3, A acted in concert with bank employees to camouflage in the bank accounts the fact about dishonoring of cheques which the bank had already purchased so as to prev ent a bankruptcy by the bank, and A was held for the guilty of conspiracy to fraud. According to Lord Goff, conspiracy to fraud does not restrict to the notion of divesting somebody with something of value, but it also falls under deceit and fraud and if somebody may be discriminated in any way by the deceit or fraud. (Fionda & Bryant2000:154).