Fraud Act 2006 Case Study

Debbie will be charged contrary to Fraud Act 2006 section 1 . Fraud can be committed in one of three ways; the fraud Debbie is likely to be charged with is false representation. S2(1) states that ‘a person is in breach of this section if he’ , S2(1)(a) ‘Dishonestly makes a false representation , S2(1)(b) ‘and intends, by making the representation’ , S2(1)(b)(i)’to make a gain for himself or another’ , S2(1)(b)(ii) ‘or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss’ .
The actus reus (AR) for this offence is ‘a false representation is made’ . A representation can be a statement of fact or law and can include ‘the state of mind of the making the representation’ , ‘or any other person’ . ‘A representation may be express or implied’ .The case of DPP v. Ray an implied representation was made when the defendant sat down in the restaurant. A false representation is a statement which is misleading or untrue . Misleading or untrue is not defined in the Fraud Act 2006 S2(2) , but misleading means ‘less than wholly true and capable of an …show more content…
There is no definition of a menace in the statue. Menaces is thought to be a word of common sense the jury should understand and was introduced in the case of Clear it was said that ‘the threat must be such as to influence the mind of the ordinary person of normal stability and courage or make him apprehensive to willingly accede to the demand.’ . Menaces is the objective test the jury decide. Would Debbie’s demand force Jason to accede the demand if he had read it? The ordinary person, could be frightened of being exposed to their wife, however it is not clear if there is an affair taking place and if it is just two friends having a drink then, Jason would not accede to Debbie’s demands. The offence does not have to be successfully communicated. It is enough the demand was made in such a way that if the intended recipient received the demand they would