DOCSLIB.ORG

Fraud Act 2006.Qxp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fraud Act 2006.Qxp Client Alert 07-022 Antitrust, Competition, Regulatory Litigation & EU Law Fraud Act 2006 This note examines the Fraud Act 2006 (“FA”) from a competition law perspective. It seeks to assess what impact the FA could have on competition law in the UK and, in particular, how it relates to existing legislation dealing with cartel activity and the common law If you have questions or would offence of conspiracy to defraud. like additional information on the material covered in this Bulletin, General summary please contact the author: The FA came into force on the 15th January 2007. By introducing a general offence of Noel Watson-Doig (London) “fraud”, the aim was to simplify the law by replacing the various deception offences under ddi: +44(0)20 7772 5786 the Theft Act. This new general offence of fraud is set out in section 1 of the FA. It can be [email protected] committed in three ways: ...or the Reed Smith Richards • Fraud by false representation; Butler attorney with whom you regularly work, or any of the • Fraud by failing to disclose information; following lawyers in our Antitrust, Competition, Regulatory • Fraud by abuse of position. Litigation & EU Law Group: A person who is guilty of fraud is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a Katherine Holmes (London) term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or both). ddi: +44(0)20 7772 5945 Of the three ways that the general offence of fraud can be committed under the FA, perhaps [email protected] the most applicable to anti-competitive activities is fraud by abuse of position. Marjorie Holmes (London) Fraud by abuse of position ddi: +44(0)20 7816 3837 [email protected] Under section 4 of the FA a person commits the offence of fraud by abuse of position if he: Edward Miller (London) • occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the ddi: +44(0)20 7556 6778 financial interests of another person, [email protected] • dishonestly abuses that position, and Fred Houwen (London) ddi: +44(0)20 7772 5825 • in so doing, intends to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another [email protected] or to expose another to a risk of loss. Lesley Davey (London) The relationship between the directors of a company and its shareholders would seem to be ddi: +44(0)20 7816 3754 covered by subsection (a) above. The term “abuse”, under subsection (b), has deliberately [email protected] not been defined in the FA to ensure that it covers a broad range of activities. It seems highly likely that cartel behaviour would be deemed to be a dishonest abuse of the position Richard Waite (London) of a director. Indeed, in its response to a consultation on the final report of the Attorney ddi: +44(0)20 7816 3925 General’s fraud review, the OFT stated that it considered cartels to be a serious form of [email protected] fraud. It is important to note that under subsection (c) above, a “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one already has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have. In theory, therefore, a director of a company involved in cartel activities could be prosecuted under the FA. If found guilty, he would be liable to imprisonment for a maximum term of 10 years or to a fine, or to both. Under the Enterprise Act 2002 (“EA”), a person found guilty of a cartel offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both. The FA therefore provides for a harsher criminal sanction than the EA. The Fraud Act, the Enterprise Act and the common law offence of conspiracy March 2007 to defraud However, whilst the FA might provide for tougher sanctions, that does not necessarily make This bulletin is presented for information purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice. it the most suitable or likely means of prosecution for cartel activity. Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303620 and registered office at The EA introduced a stand-alone criminal offence relating to the pursuit of cartel conduct. Beaufort House, Tenth Floor, 15 St Botolph Street, It is a tightly defined statutory offence which also provides for a leniency regime. It is, London EC3A 7EE. Reed Smith Richards Butler is regulated by the Law Society. therefore, a piece of legislation which is highly specific as to subject matter, as to who can ©Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP 2007. be prosecuted and as to the relevant penalties. In many circumstances where an individual All rights reserved. is found to be involved in potential cartel activities, therefore, it will be more appropriate to www.reedsmith.com base a criminal prosecution on the provisions of the EA rather than the FA. Client Alert 07-022 Antitrust, Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that the cartel offence under the EA only applies to horizontal agreements. In relation to a price-fixing arrangement, for example, for Competition, the offence under the EA to be applicable, the relevant undertakings must operate at the same level of the supply or production chain. In addition, there can be no criminal offence under Regulatory the EA if the arrangement in question only requires one undertaking to fix prices or limit Litigation & production or supply. Arrangements to carry out such prohibited activities must be reciprocal. The FA, however, is not restricted in scope to horizontal agreements, nor does it contain the EU Law same requirement for reciprocity. Potentially, therefore, it could be used to prosecute those cartel activities which do not fall within the ambit of the EA. In addition to both the EA and the FA, the case of Ian Norris has shown that the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is also potentially applicable to charges of dishonest price- fixing and cartel activity (although it should be noted that the case may go on appeal to the House of Lords). The FA has not abolished the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. The fact that there is an overlap between the statutory and common law offences does not negate the fact that the common law could also be used to prosecute cartel activity1. Such situations, where offences are potentially covered both by statute and common law, are dealt with by the Interpretation Act 1998, which states that the offender is liable to be prosecuted under either statute or common law, but not under both for the same offence. Should a fraudulent cartel be deemed to be outside the scope of the EA, therefore, there is no reason why the common law would not be applicable. Clearly, until the FA has been in force long enough to be properly tested by the courts, it will not be possible to reach any firm conclusions as to its potential use in a competition law context. However, although the general offence of fraud under the FA would seem to potentially cover cartel activity, it seems likely that both the cartel offence as provided for under the EA and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud will remain the more appropriate and potentially effective means of prosecution of such activity. 1Ian Norris v The Government of the United States of America [2007] EWHC 71 (Admin), para 89.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RE-VISITING the FRAUD ACT 2006 – a STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks
    RE-VISITING THE FRAUD ACT 2006 – A STEP TOO FAR? Hannah Willcocks Brought into force on 15th January 2007,1 the Fraud Act 2006 (‘the Act’) has now been part of the criminal law of England and Wales for over 12 years. Through the introduction of a new general offence of fraud, its aim was to improve the law by making it: a. more comprehensible to juries, especially in serious fraud trials; b. a useful tool in effective prosecutions; c. simpler and therefore fairer; and d. more flexible so able to encompass all forms of fraud 2 and “deal with developing technology”.3 Following the Act’s implementation, it has generally4 been accepted5 that the Act has managed to overcome the vast majority of the difficulties previously encountered with the old offences of deception.6 In 2012, in its Post-Legislative Assessment of the Fraud Act 2006, the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) concluded that the aims and objectives of the 1 The Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006 (SI 2006/3200). 2 Law Commission, Fraud (Law Com No 276, Cm 5560, 2002), para 1.6. 3 Home Office, Fraud Law Reform: Consultation on Proposals for Legislation (2004) p. 5. 4 For a contrary view see Anthony Arlidge QC, Jonathan Fisher QC, Alexander Milne QC and Polly Sprenger, Arlidge and Parry on Fraud (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016) 44, para 3-005. 5 See e.g. Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law, Theory and Doctrine (5th edn, Hart Publishing Ltd 2013) 610; Andrew Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 405; Carol Withey ‘The Fraud Act 2006 – some early observations and comparisons with the former law’ (2007) 71(3) Journal of Criminal Law, 220 – 237, 228 – 236; Nicholas Yeo, ‘Bull’s-Eye’, 157 NLJ 212 & 418.
    [Show full text]
  • Think Box 13.5
    Loveless, Allen, and Derry: Complete Criminal Law 7e, Chapter 13 Thinking Point 13.1 Has D committed fraud by false representation under s2 Fraud Act 2006? An auction house sells a painting by Picasso, believing it to be genuine. It turns out to be a forgery. Do they have MR for s2? Answer guidance 1. AR: False representation MR: Knowledge that the representation is false, dishonesty and intention to make a gain/loss/risk loss to another. Any auction house will always harbour a suspicion about the authenticity of art. They will therefore know that their representation might be false. But in the absence of dishonesty, assessed objectively (Ivey) they will lack MR. Thinking Point 13.2 D applies for foreign travel insurance for a forthcoming holiday and deliberately fails to disclose a recent operation involving major surgery. Whilst on holiday, her condition deteriorates and she requires expensive medical treatment. She submits a claim for this under the insurance policy. Has she committed fraud under s3? Answer guidance Yes. Any type of insurance contract is one of ‘utmost good faith’ and D will have both a contractual and also a criminal duty to disclose relevant information. The presence of dishonesty and intent to make a gain/cause loss/expose another to risk of loss will secure conviction under s1. Dishonesty is assessed objectively. Thinking Point 13.3 Has D committed fraud under s4? 1. D, a Citizen’s Advice Bureau adviser, professing to offer free advice and assistance, obtains compensation of £5000 on behalf of an elderly client for whom she had taken legal proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 Criminal Conduct Offences
    Chapter 8 Criminal conduct offences Page Index 1-8-1 Introduction 1-8-2 Chapter structure 1-8-2 Transitional guidance 1-8-2 Criminal conduct - section 42 – Armed Forces Act 2006 1-8-5 Violence offences 1-8-6 Common assault and battery - section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-6 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - section 47 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 1-8-11 Possession in public place of offensive weapon - section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1-8-15 Possession in public place of point or blade - section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-17 Dishonesty offences 1-8-20 Theft - section 1 Theft Act 1968 1-8-20 Taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority - section 12 Theft Act 1968 1-8-25 Making off without payment - section 3 Theft Act 1978 1-8-29 Abstraction of electricity - section 13 Theft Act 1968 1-8-31 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services – section 125 Communications Act 2003 1-8-32 Possession or supply of apparatus which may be used for obtaining an electronic communications service - section 126 Communications Act 2003 1-8-34 Fraud - section 1 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-37 Dishonestly obtaining services - section 11 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-41 Miscellaneous offences 1-8-44 Unlawful possession of a controlled drug - section 5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1-8-44 Criminal damage - section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 1-8-47 Interference with vehicles - section 9 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1-8-51 Road traffic offences 1-8-53 Careless and inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 1-8-53 Driving
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Stephen Copp and Alison Cronin, 'The Failure of Criminal Law To
    Dr Stephen Copp and Alison Cronin, ‘The Failure of Criminal Law to Control the Use of Off Balance Sheet Finance During the Banking Crisis’ (2015) 36 The Company Lawyer, Issue 4, 99, reproduced with permission of Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Ltd. This extract is taken from the author’s original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000014eca3cbb3f02 6cd4c4&docguid=I83C7BE20C70F11E48380F725F1B325FB&hitguid=I83C7BE20C70F11 E48380F725F1B325FB&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=25&crumb- action=append&context=6&resolvein=true THE FAILURE OF CRIMINAL LAW TO CONTROL THE USE OF OFF BALANCE SHEET FINANCE DURING THE BANKING CRISIS Dr Stephen Copp & Alison Cronin1 30th May 2014 Introduction A fundamental flaw at the heart of the corporate structure is the scope for fraud based on the provision of misinformation to investors, actual or potential. The scope for fraud arises because the separation of ownership and control in the company facilitates asymmetric information2 in two key circumstances: when a company seeks to raise capital from outside investors and when a company provides information to its owners for stewardship purposes.3 Corporate misinformation, such as the use of off balance sheet finance (OBSF), can distort the allocation of investment funding so that money gets attracted into less well performing enterprises (which may be highly geared and more risky, enhancing the risk of multiple failures). Insofar as it creates a market for lemons it risks damaging confidence in the stock markets themselves since the essence of a market for lemons is that bad drives out good from the market, since sellers of the good have less incentive to sell than sellers of the bad.4 The neo-classical model of perfect competition assumes that there will be perfect information.
    [Show full text]
  • You Never Saw a Fish on the Wall with Its Mouth Shut
    IAN WINTER QC YOU NEVER SAW A FISH ON THE WALL WITH ITS MOUTH SHUT THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN R V K [2009] EWCA CRIM 1640 ISSUE NINE WINTER 2009 PUBLISHED BY CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS Nicholas Purnell QC Richard Horwell QC John Kelsey-Fry QC Timothy Langdale QC Ian Winter QC Jonathan Barnard Clare Sibson Cloth Fair Chambers specialises in fraud and commercial crime, complex and organised crime, regulatory and disciplinary matters, defamation and in broader litigation areas where specialist advocacy and advisory skills are required. 2 CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS IAN WINTER QC YOU NEVER SAW A FISH ON THE WALL WITH ITS MOUTH SHUT1 THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN R V K [2009] EWCA CRIM 1640 ISSUE NINE WINTER 2009 PUBLISHED BY CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS 1 Unreliably attributed to Sally Berger but the true origin is unclear. King John, pressured by the barons and threatened with insurrection, reluctantly signs the great charter on the Thames island of Runnymede CLOTH FAIR CHAMBERS he fish on the wall has its mouth open unreliable testimony produced as a result of it. because it couldn’t resist the temptation to open it when the occasion appeared to Had paragraph 38 of Magna Carta remained the law, which justify doing so. There are few convicted could have been the case even once the use of torture had defendants who likewise could resist the been outlawed2, the question over the admissibility of the temptation to open their mouths and accused’s statement would not have been whether the Tthereby assist their prosecutors with their own words.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences: Definitive Guideline
    Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering GUIDELINE DEFINITIVE Offences Definitive Guideline Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences Definitive Guideline 1 Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Fraud 5 Fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, fraud by abuse of position Fraud Act 2006 (section 1) Conspiracy to defraud Common law False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) Possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud 13 Possession of articles for use in frauds Fraud Act 2006 (section 6) Making or supplying articles for use in frauds Fraud Act 2006 (section 7) Revenue fraud 19 Fraud Conspiracy to defraud (common law) Fraud Act 2006 (section 1) False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) Fraudulent evasion of VAT; False statement for VAT purposes; Conduct amounting to an offence Value Added Tax Act 1994 (section 72) Effective from 1 October 2014 2 Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences Definitive Guideline Fraudulent evasion of income tax Taxes Management Act 1970 (section 106A) Fraudulent evasion of excise duty; Improper importation of goods Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (sections 50, 170 and 170B) Fraud Cheat the public revenue (common law) Benefit fraud 27 Dishonest representations for obtaining benefit etc Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 111A) Tax Credit fraud Tax Credits Act 2002 (section 35) False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) False representations for obtaining benefit etc Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 112) Fraud by false representation,
    [Show full text]
  • False Id Guidance
    FALSE ID GUIDANCE July 2012 CONTENTS 1. Ministerial Foreword .........................................................................................................................................................4 2. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................5 Who this guidance is for .....................................................................................................................................................5 Glossary.................................................................................................................................................................................5 Background to the problem ...............................................................................................................................................6 3. The law regarding false ID .............................................................................................................................................7 Types of false ID .................................................................................................................................................................7 Identity Documents Act 2010 ...........................................................................................................................................7 Fraud Act 2006 ....................................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. (See end of Document for details) Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 F1 1969 CHAPTER 16 An Act to revise the law of Northern Ireland as to theft and similar or associated offences; and for purposes connected therewith. [10th July 1969] Annotations: F1 mod. by 1981 NI 26 DEFINITION OF “THEFT” 1 Basic definition of theft. (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit. (3) The five following sections shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section). 2 “Dishonestly”. (1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or (c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
    [Show full text]
  • Pamela Darroux V the Crown
    Page 1 Pamela Darroux v The Crown Case No: 2016/03297/B1 Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 4 May 2018 [2018] EWCA Crim 1009 2018 WL 02065566 Before: Lord Justice Davis Mr Justice King and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Date: 04/05/2018 On Appeal from Crown Court at Wood Green Hearing date: 13 April 2018 Representation Laurie-Anne Power for the Appellant. Christiaan Moll for the Respondent. Approved Judgment Lord Justice Davis: Introduction 1 In Blackstone's Criminal Practice (18th ed.) at paragraph B4.48 the following is stated: "Where an alleged theft involves a thing in action such as the credit balance in V's bank account, or the right to payment on a cheque, it can sometimes be particularly difficult to identify the crucial act of appropriation, even where it seems clear that D has dishonestly enriched himself at V's expense. In most such cases, the prosecution would be well advised to use charges other than theft…" 2 These are wise words. But unfortunately this was not a course followed in this case. In circumstances where the charges could readily and appropriately have been framed by reference to s. 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (this case being virtually a paradigm example of fraud by false representation within the ambit of s. 2 of that Act) the charges were all framed by reference to s. 1 of the Theft Act 1968 . 3 The consequence has been, in the light of the appellant's conviction, an appeal to this court of a kind which much engaged the courts (and academic commentators) in years gone by: a consequence which the Fraud Act 2006 had in truth been designed to counter.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Huddersfield Repository University of Huddersfield Repository Drake, P J Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Original Citation Drake, P J (2011) Is the requirement of dishonesty always the best policy to estabish liability against those who assist in a breach of trust? Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/11652/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ IS THE REQUIREMENT OF DISHONESTY ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSIST IN A BREACH OF TRUST? Philip J Drake A dissertation submitted for the award of the degree of Master of Laws (LLM) The University of Huddersfield May 2011 .
    [Show full text]
  • Scrap the Act: the Case for Repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824)
    Scrap the Act: The case for repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824) This campaign is supported by: ii Scrap the Act: The case for repealing the Vagrancy Act (1824) iii Author Acknowledgements Nick Morris works in the Policy and External Affairs The views in this report are those of Crisis only but in the course of writing directorate at Crisis. it we benefited from valued contributions: • The Crisis project team: Matt Downie, Rosie Downes, Martine Martin, Simon Trevethick, Cuchulainn Sutton-Hamilton, and Nick Morris; and our colleague Lily Holman-Brant for helping produce this report. • George Olney from Crisis for providing the stories told to him by people on the street who were affected by the Act and directors from the Crisis Skylight services across England and Wales who shared their contacts and stories. • Campaign partners Homeless Link, St Mungo’s, Centrepoint, Cymorth Cymru, The Wallich, and Shelter Cymru for their help developing this report and the campaign to repeal the Act. • Lord Hogan-Howe for this report’s foreword and for chairing the multi- agency roundtable discussion in April 2019 in the UK Supreme Court (details in Appendix 1). Photo credit Chris McAndrew, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence. • Mike Schwarz, Bindmans LLP, for giving the legal advice in Appendix 2. • Professor Nick Crowson for sharing historical data about the Vagrancy Act’s use. • Cllr Ruth Bush and Matthias Kelly QC, for sharing their experiences of the End the Vagrancy Act campaign. • Prison Reform Trust for helping analyse the recent data. • Hannah Hart for providing advice and connections to policing and Crown Prosecution Service contacts who briefed us on police and criminal justice processes.
    [Show full text]