Law 04 FBFR

S2(3) Fraud Act 2006 - States that a representation can be made as to fact, as to law, as to state of mind and can be made expressed or implied 

S2(5) - Representation to machines, covering all devises and systems

Expressed representations: (written, spoken, posted) 

Silverman - Necessary to show that there had been an untrue representation 

Hamilton 

Implied representations; (conduct, decpetion) 

Barnard - Supports an implied and expressed representation 

Lambie - Dishonestly misuses a credit card to pay for items. By tendering the card, they are falsely representing that he has the authority to use it 

Pre Fraud Act 2006 

DPP v Ray (Intention to pay for a meal) Gilmartin (Paying by cheque) Metropolitain Police Commander v Charles (Use of a cheque garantee card) 

Fraud Act 2006 - A representation is false if:

(a) Is untrue or misleading, and 

(b) The person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading 

Fraud Law: Government Response to Consultation (2004) - Stated that 'missleading' was 'less than wholly true and capable of interpretation to the detriment of the victim' 

Intention to make a gain or cause a loss of other propety 

S5 Fraud Act 2006 - Defines property as 'any property whether real or personal including things in action and other intangible propety' 

Gain can be temporary or permanent 

Kapitene EWCA 2061 - Supports gain and loss of fraud 

Gosh Test - 1) Was D dishonest as per the ordinary standards of a reasonable and honest person? and 2) Did D realise the act would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable people?

Subjective test 

Focuses on what the defendant knew, must know it was misleading at the time 

Not necessary for the fraud to succeed only need the intention to make gain or cause loss

Laverty - (old law) The prosecution had to prove that the deception had caused the obtaining of property