fraud

Question 1

basic definition

Answer 1

inducing a person, by false pretences, to do something that they would not otherwise have done

Question 2

false statement of future intention

Answer 2

Richards v HM Adv 1971 JC 29
Facts: The false pretence was a false statement that the accused intended to live in a house that he wanted to purchase. This was important to the seller, however this was not true.

Question 3

implied representations

Answer 3

Strathern v Fogal 1922 JC 73
Facts: Accused charged with failing to disclose the relevant local rates. They failed to disclose money they got from tenants to the relevant tax assessor, which meant that incorrect sums were recorded.
Significance: Legal duty to disclose information, someone fails to do so, common law fraud.

Question 4

material matter

Answer 4

Tapsell v Prentice (1910) 6 Adam 354
Facts: Accused adopted a false identity, and joined a group of travellers to get someone to buy a rug from her.
Legal issue: No misrepresentation about the price or anything.
Held: The relevant misrepresentation didn’t go to the core of the transaction, it was collateral. No fraud.

Question 5

economic consequence?

Answer 5

G v HM Adv 2016 SLT 282
Facts: A woman accused of fraud got pregnant with the complainer. She had a male co-accused who she was acting with. She falsely represented to local officials that she had terminated the pregnancy, however she had not done so. She went on to give birth to the child. She and her co-accused had created a fake profile page for a surrogate for the male co-accused. They then registered the child that she had given birth to, to the male co-accused.
Legal issue: They deprived the complainer the chance to have a relationship with his child, or PRRs or anything.
Significance: Need not be an economic consequence. This was still fraud.

Question 6

does there have to be any gain?

Answer 6

McKenzie v HM Adv 1988 SLT 487
Facts: Appellant charged with attempted fraud, having hatched a scheme to obtain money from a fishery. They showed up to a solicitor’s office, saying they were employed on a fishing vessel. They managed to get the lawyer to raise a civil action and start court proceedings. This case was mainly about the attempt to get money.
Held: Just getting the solicitor to raise the action, even though no money had come to them. Fraud. Practical result.

Question 7

causal relationship

Answer 7

Mather v HM Adv (1914) 7 Adam 525
Facts: Accused had used a bad cheque to buy some cattle, and it bounced.
Held: On appeal, yes this was false pretence, but it wasn’t how he had gotten the cattle, because delivery had happened at an earlier point. The presenting of the cheque wasn’t the means by which the cattle was delivered. This cheque wasn’t a causal relationship.
Significance: The false pretence must influence the behaviour of the complainer.

Question 8

mens rea

Answer 8

Mackenzie v Skeen 1971 JC 43
Facts: Accused reckless about weighing out offal sold on to a food manager.
Legal issue: he was just careless, no intention.
Significance: Fraud can’t be committed recklessly or unintentionally, there must be intention.