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

The tommyrot Act 2006 in the UK - Essay ExampleIn 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 disrespect of fraud, which locoweed be done in the following ways namely fraud by impuissance to divulge information, fraud by dishonesty or duperyful representation and fraud by harm 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 sestet months or with both. Under tort of deceit, a person may claim damages if the fraud act 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 2009240). Courts in England have not yet prepared to prescribe exactly what can be regarded as fraud. It is to be noted that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) which was formed on the tribute 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 UKs Home Office employs even today. (Ramage 20054). As on date, in UK, there exists no statutory offence of fraud and the Home Office of UK has set out or so kinds criminal activities that can be regarded as offences of fraud in Counting Rules for arrangement Crime. According to a publication made by the Home Office in April 2003, describing the following as offences of forgery and fraud. Frauds by an individual include common law offence of junto to defraud, under the coming back of Crime Act 2002, fraudulent misappropriation of funds, obtaining a money transfer through credit cod or cheque fraud under section 12 of the Theft Act 1987. (Ramage 2005104).In Cronos Containers NV v Palatin, the defendants were Klamath Enterprises SA and Mr. and Mrs. Palatin. The shares of Klamath were possess by Mr. Palatin. In 1994, Mr.Palatin deceived the plaintiff by making five different payments from one of the Plaintiffs clients, and the same was credited into Barclays bank account owned by Paladins. Then, such defrauded sums were employed by the defendants to resuscitate a property held by Klamath. (Ramage 20054). Conspiracy to Defraud Under Common Law It falls under consent to divest deceitfully somebodys right or to abuse somebodys property privilege. In Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner2, S agreed with workers of a cinema house 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 design with bank employees to camouflage in the bank accounts the fact about dishonoring of cheques which the bank had already purchased so as to prevent 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 & Bryant2000154).