Fraud The fraud offences Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 sets out a broad outline of the structure

e of the new offence. We will examine the details of each element of the offence and the different ways in which it can be committed in later sections. First, you need to be clear about the three ways in which the single offence of fraud can be committed, listed in s.1(2): fraud by false representation (s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006 fraud by failing to disclose information (s.! of the Fraud Act 2006 fraud by abuse of position (s." of the Fraud Act 2006 .

 #n addition to these offences you will also need to understand two other related offences. o obtaining services dishonestly (s.$$ of the Fraud Act 2006 % this is not strictly a fraud offence since it does not in&ol&e any form of false representation or deception. 'his offence effecti&ely replaces the old offence of (obtaining ser&ices by deception( o making off without ayment (s.! of the 'heft Act $)*+ % this offence is an anomaly as it does not re,uire any deception but is usually discussed alongside the deception offences. -nli.e the other deception offences it was not repealed by the Fraud Act 2006 and remains in force.

!ffence 1/ Fraud by false re resentation Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 creates a new, broad offence of fraud by false representation. 'his is designed to be a general offence, thus negating the need to identify recisely what is obtained and how it is obtained (common problems with the old law . 'he essence of the new offence is that the defendant makes a false re resentation. 0.2(! %'hat false re resentation may be e" ress or im lied, as to fact or law or as to the state of mind of the defendant or another. #n addition to this there are mens rea re,uirements that the defendant .nows that the re resentation is or might be false, intends to cause loss to another or make a gain and is dishonest.

 We will examine each element in turn.

#$ 1eaning of 2false3% untrue and misleading% less than wholly true 'he false representation type of fraud in criminal law is similar to the concept of misrepresentation in contract law, in that it in&ol&es a false representation % that is a re resentation that something is true, when it in fact is false. 4owe&er, the criminal law goes further as s.2(2) states specifically that a representation is deemed to be (false( if it is: %untrue or misleading%. 'he truth or otherwise of a representation may be a straightforward ,uestion of fact for the 5ury. 4owe&er, when is a representation misleading for the purposes of criminal law6

 1isleading statements may be partially true but sub5ect to misinterpretation by the &ictim. 'he explanatory notes on the Act suggest that a misleading statement is one that is %less than wholly true and ca able of an inter retation to the detriment of the victim%. Far from clarifying the law, this aspect of s.2 is &ague and the parameters of falsehood are unclear here.

Application 1ary, aged *7, as.s 4arry, a local builder, for an estimate to decorate a room in her flat. 4arry pro&ides a written estimate which sets out the cost of the aint to com lete the &ob at '())* the cost of three days( labour charges at 8$00 per day and a further charge of '1)) for % rofessional cleaning% after the 5ob is finished. 'he estimate is pro&ided on headed business paper, which states (+arry ,ones* -uilding .ontractor* in business for 2/ years%. 4arry is entitled to a discount on the aint at the wholesalers and it only costs him '2)). 4arry finishes the 5ob after 2 days, and uses 0ary%s own vacuum cleaner to clean u the dust. 'his is +arry%s first &ob in his new business venture ( ) , ha&ing been made redundant from the firm he pre&iously wor.ed for. 4as 4arry made any false representations under s.2 of the Fraud Act 20066

 'his scenario demonstrates the obscurity of the notions of falsehood and truth under the Act. 'he crucial distinction to be made is whether e"aggerated claims about the cost of the materials and the labour amount to a falsehood which should be criminalised or whether these are legitimate, if rather (sharp(, business ractices through which 4arry is attem ting to ma"imise his rofits. 4arry(s claim that the aint costs '()) is clearly false as it only costs him '2)). 0imilarly his claim to offer rofessional cleaning, when in fact he merely uses a domestic vacuum cleaner may also be false. -oth may cause detriment to the victim.

 4owe&er, 4arry(s claim to ha&e been in business for 2/ years is not wholly true. 9et does this cause any detriment to 1ary6 +arry%s liability my hinge on the mens rea elements of .nowing the statements are misleading, intent to cause loss and dishonesty which will be discussed below. 9et 1avid !rmerod criticises the Act(s use of the word %misleading% for otentially criminalising businesses which make e"aggerated or less than wholly true statements about their products and ser&ices in defining the actus reus of the offence.

s.2(! False representation as to fact or law or state of mind of : or another 'he false (or misleading representation may be as to fact or as to law or as to the defendant(s or any other person(s state of mind. 'he following examples illustrate the difference between these types of representation. o :, who is $*, says, (# am $+ years old.( 1ece tion as to fact. o : then says to a bartender, ('he law permits you to sell alcohol to a $*%year%old.( 1ece tion as to law. o : enters a restaurant and orders a meal. #n fact, : has no money and no credit card with which to pay for the meal. 1ece tion as to 1%s state of mind/ 1 is re resenting to the waiter* by his conduct* that he intends to ay for the meal.

;xample/ # sells - a car* the odometer of which he knows carries a false reading. # cannot be guilty of fraud as he has made no false re resentation as to the mileage. 2t would be different if, upon being as.ed, A confirmed the reading or said that it was genuine (e" ress re resentation of fact) or that he believed it to be genuine (e" ress re resentation as to his state of mind).

s.2(" False representation may be express or implied 'his re,uirement can be ta.en as meaning that the false representation may be made by words (that is, e" ressly , or by words or by omission (that is, by im lication . 'he most obvious form of false re resentation will be one made expressly by words, for example by : saying something false or untrue. 4owe&er, im lied re resentations may be more subtle. 1 may* by his behaviour* im ly something which the victim assumes to be true but which is, in fact, false. <y saying nothing, if the defendant allows the victim to believe the falsehood, this amounts to an im lied false re resentation (assuming, of course, : has the re,uisite mens rea which will be discussed below .

 #mplied false representations were e&entually confirmed as deception under the old law and some of the cases which discuss the old law pro&ide examples of how false representations can be made by conduct or silence.

0ilence =omission>%implied false representation constitute false representation # is selling her car. #t is in bad condition. 'o ensure that <, a potential buyer, does not realise this, she tells < she will only show him the car at 3 m. < inspects the car and does not spot the defects. Would it ma.e any difference to the answer to the abo&e ,uestion if A had said, untruthfully, %4ou will have to come at 3 m as 2 do not get back from work until then%5 #n two situations silence may constitute a false re resentation. #n both cases the silence creates a false im ression.

#dam erforms a surgical o eration on 6ve at 7reen 8ing +os ital. +e does not tell the hos ital that 6ve is a rivate atient and* as a result* the hos ital does not invoice him for the cost of the o eration (R v Firth (1393)). <y not telling the hospital, when he is under a duty of disclosure, #dam is creating a false im ression that 6ve is a national health service (:+S) atient rather than the rivate atient she actually is. -ecause of his duty of disclosure, the hos ital is entitled to assume that all atients o erated on are :+S atients unless #dam tells them otherwise.

#mplied representation able to pay enter into restaurant 1;; v $ay =$)*!> ?old case 1 and his friends entered a restaurant and ordered a meal. #fter eating the meal 1 changed his mind about aying and agreed with his friends that they would leave without aying. : waited for the waiter to go into the .itchen and then ran out of the restaurant without paying the bill. 1 had, by his conduct in entering the restaurant and ordering a meal, made a re resentation that he could and would ay for it.

o A point of contention in this case was whether :(s deception was committed by his conduct in entering the restaurant and ordering a meal or was it committed by changing his mind about paying and saying nothing6 o @ord 1ac:ermott argued that when : entered the restaurant he had the intention to pay and thought he had enough money. 0o his representation as to his present intentions were at that point true and therefore there was initially no dece tion. #fter the meal 1 formed a new intention not to ay* which was at that time false. o At that point there was a deception by conduct as :, through failing to communicate the change in his intentions, implied to the waiter for a short period that he was an honest customer, when he was not.

o A false representation here may be seen as a continuing act, which began as a true representation but became false. 6ffectively 1 is %failing to undeceive% the victim or committing a false re resentation by omission. <nder the new law it would not matter whether the false re resentation was made by his initial conduct or his later silence, since both are clearly covered by s.2.

#mplied representation able to pay by che,ue boo. .harles =$)**> : was granted an o&erdraft of 8$00 by his ban. and was given a che=ue book and a banker%s card, on which was printed a statement that the bank would honour any che=ue tendered u to the value of '() where the che=ue card was used. 1 used the card to guarantee 2/ che=ues to the value of '() each, ha&ing already exceeded his o&erdraft and contrary to the express instructions of his ban. manager.

 'he 4ouse of @ords held that in tendering a che=ue 1 made a re resentation to the payee that he had the authority to enter* on behalf of the bank, into the contract expressed on the card that the bank would honour the che=ue. 2f 1 knows that the bank had withdrawn that authority then the re resentation would be false and could amount to a dece tion.

#mplied representation that post%date che,ue able to pay 7ilmartin ($)+! 1 tendered four ost>dated che=ues at a time when his ban. account was heavily overdrawn. #ll four che=ues were dishonoured. : had used the che=ues to buy goods which he sold in return for che,ues made out for cash and claimed that he intended to buy bac. the post%dated che,ues with the che,ues for cash. 'he Aourt of Appeal held that in tendering a ost>dated che=ue 1 im liedly re resents to the ayee that on the date the che=ue was tendered it would be honoured by the ban. on or after the date specified on the che,ue.

 Bn the date that 1 hands over the che=ue he must be certain that there will be funds in the account on the day that the che,ue is presented for payment otherwise he is making a false re resentation which can amount to deception

#mplied representation that using credit card able to pay ?ambie =$)+2> 1 used a credit card in a sho to ay for goods .nowing that she was well over her credit limit and that she had no authorisation to use the card according to the terms and conditions of use. 'he 4ouse of @ords held that in tendering a credit card 1 makes a re resentation that she is authorised to enter into contracts on behalf of the credit card company, binding the company to honour payment to the shop. 2f 1 knows this to be false this is a false re resentation which can amount to a dece tion.

#mplied representation that able to pay by acti&ate the self ser&ice petrol pump #ctivating a self>service um at a petrol station forecourt should be capable of amounting to a re resentation that ayment will be made for the petrol in due course o Coady [old law case]

:oes not matter if initial is true representation but later turned out to be wrong, the initial one is implied representation Adam tells ;&e truthfully that the odometer reading on the car he is selling is accurate. ;rior to concluding the sale he discovers that the odometer has* in fact* been tam ered with. 4e does not communicate this to ;&e. Adam truthfully tells his local authority that ;&e, his mother, is bedridden and so in need of a downstairs bathroom. Bn the strength of this representation the local authority agrees to install a new bathroom. -efore starting the work 6ve dies. #dam fails to tell the local authority of her death #n both cases, #dam%s silence is im liedly telling the other arty that nothing relevant to their agreement has changed since the first representation was made. This is a false re resentation.

S.2(/) False representation using a system or de&ice #n order for the new law to .eep up with new electronic media often used to commit fraud, s.2(7 s ecifically includes within the offence false re resentations when @submitted in any formA to @any system or device designed to receive* convey or res ond to communications (with or without human intervention)%. 'his is a much clearer way of criminalising wholly electronic frauds

 'he following are some examples of how fraud may be committed by effecti&ely decei&ing a machine. o 1 uses some foreign coins in a vending machine to obtain a bar of chocolate. o : dishonestly uses his mother%s credit card to buy a A: in a shop and enters her .+2; and ;2: number in the machine. o : buys a car insurance policy on the internet and enters his age as (/ on the form* when in fact 1 is 13. o 1 sends an email to B claiming to be a member of staff at B%s bank, as.ing C to confirm her name, address and credit card D#E number for a security chec..

Extend broadly even criminalise when typing the false representation statement by using computer !rmerod suggests that it also has the effect of broadening the offence in the context of electronic communication, because it does need to actually emanate from the defendant into the world outside control* in the electronic context it appears to be made at the point at which it is Fsubmitted . . . to any system Cetc.D . . . designed to receive* convey or res ond to communicationsG. 'hus, the fraudster who drafts a hishing email commits the offence while drafting because com uter is the @systemA which @designed to receiveEcommunicateA Phishing is the practice of sending of multiple (often automated email messages re!uesting (fraudulently that the recipients of the messages transfer money to a supposedly" worth" beneficiary

Eo need Aausation as long as ma.e FH A ma5or change in the new law on fraud is the abandonment of the re,uirement that any false representation made by : is (operati&e( on the &ictim, or that it causes C to part with their property, ser&ices etc. 8hilst 1 must intend to make a gain for himself or another or cause the victim a loss* this is a mens rea re=uirement (which will be discussed below). #n terms of the actus reus of the offence, 1 does not actually have to cause any loss or make any gain. The intent to do so will suffice. Further, whether or not B loses or 1 gains, there is no re=uirement that the gain or loss is in any way linked to the false re resentation.

 #n effect fraud has become a %conduct crime% and has ceased to be a (result crime( because the actus reus now consists entirely of the conduct of making the false re resentation and there is no need to rove any articular conse=uence (or result) of the conduct.

Application# : creates a website on which he ad&ertises for sale signed hotogra hs of ,onny -rown, a famous mo&ie actor. 4e also claims that all the proceeds of any sales of these photographs will be donated to charity. #n fact : downloaded the photographs from the internet and signed them himself, but he does intend to donate the proceeds of the sales to charity. Aarol reads the website and, being an a&id fan of Ionny <rown, wants his autograph and buys a photograph. ;mma reads the website but .nows that Ionny <rown is a renowned as a recluse and ne&er signs autographs. Ee&ertheless she finds him attracti&e and decides to buy a photograph anyway. Flora reads the website and does not .now who Ionny <rown is. 4owe&er, she is a firm supporter of the charity that : intends to donate the proceeds to so she buys a photograph as a way of ma.ing a donation to the charity.

 1 has made an e" ress re resentation that the hotogra hs for sale are signed. This is true. 4owe&er, his re resentation may be deemed to be misleading, because a otential buyer may assume from his words that the hotogra hs are signed by ,onny -rown, when in fact they are not. 1 knows that his re resentation is* or may be* misleading. #n fact all three cases fulfil the actus reus of the s.2 offence. Cno need causationD #n (a Aarol is induced to buy the photograph by the false representation, so this would be co&ered by the new law and would ha&e been co&ered by the old law, since the representation is (operati&e(.

 ;mma, in (b , does not belie&e the representation, but buys a photograph anyway, but under the new law the actus reus is complete once the false representation is made. #n (c Flora is an e&en more star. and contro&ersial example since she is completely unaware that she is being decei&ed and is not interested in the false representation.

Argument# As there is no re,uirement that any &ictim of the fraud is actually decei&ed, or actually loses thereby, :a&id Brmerod (200*, p.$)6 claims that the new Fraud Act 2006 has created a (wholly inchoate offence =which> appears to criminalise lying(. #ndeed, under the old law, a defendant who made a false representation but who clearly did not induce C to part with their property (or ser&ices, etc. as a result of the deception, may ha&e been liable for an attempted deception, but not the full offence. -nder the new law, once a false representation is made and communicated, the offence is complete and there can be no attempted fraud. #n his sense :a&id Brmerod may be right in criticising the Act for creating what appears to be an (inchoate offence(.

0ens rea #t can be seen from the abo&e section that the actus reus of the offence in s.2 is &ery wide and in parts ambiguous. #t is therefore imperati&e that the mens rea re=uirements are rather more strict in order to rotect defendants from un&ust or unnecessary criminalisation. 0ection 2 contains three mens rea re,uirements. 'hey are/ o that : .nows that his representation is or might be false or misleading o that : intends to ma.e a gain for himself or another or intends to cause loss to C o that : is acting dishonestly. #ll three of these mental elements must be established before the offence is complete.

 We will examine each in turn. 1. 1 knows that his re resentation is or might be false or misleading 'his re,uirement essentially replaces the re,uirement under the old law that a deception be deliberate (i.e. intentional or rec.less. 'he mens rea of the new offence co&ers both deliberate deceptions, where 1 knows that his re resentation is false* and %careless% dece tions* where 1 is aware of a risk that his re resentation might be untrue. 4owe&er, there may be some difficulty in pro&ing that : .new, or was aware of a ris. that, his representation may be misleading since this may re=uire that 1 was aware of the state of mind of any reci ient of the re resentation.

 #n reality, this aspect of the mens rea may o&erlap with the ,uestion of whether : was dishonest, which in&ol&es as.ing a different but related ,uestion about whether : was aware that his actions may ha&e been dishonest in the minds of others.

2. 1 intends to make a gain or cause a loss 'his mens rea element is rather more strict and clear. 'here is no recklessness here, 1 must intend a articular conse=uence to result from his false representation. Eote howe&er that this conse=uence does not need to occur.

#ntention but not rec.less #ntention bears its normal meaning in criminal law, that is 1%s ur ose was to gain or cause loss or he foresaw such gain or loss as a virtually certain conse=uence of his actions, in which case the 5ury are entitled to find intent (8oollin . : must intend that the gain or loss is actually caused by his false re resentation, even though the gain or loss may never ha en.

Jain or loss area%moneyKproperty but not the landKnon%pecuniary and may be temporaryKpermanent Section / of the Fraud Act 2006 gi&es further guidance on the ty es of gain and loss which the Act is intended to co&er. Eotice that gain and loss are defined for these purposes entirely in terms of money or other ro erty. 'his definition accords with the definition of ro erty in s.(F(2) Theft #ct $)6+ which a lies to other ro erty offences such as theft itself and blackmail. 0ection !"(2 expressly e"cludes land as a form of property which can apply to this offence. :on> ecuniary gain, such as sexual pleasure or loss, such as damaging C(s reputation, will not suffice.

 0o if 1 makes a false re resentation* for e"am le* intending to embarrass B or with intent to ma.e C late for dinner, then no offence is made out. An intent to obtain a service is dealt with exclusi&ely under s.11 of the Fraud #ct 2))G and is not covered by s.2. -esides* gainEloss may be tem orary or ermanent

Jain or loss meaning% potential or real A further parallel with s.!"(2 'heft Act $)6+ is the notion that 1 may gain for himself or another. s.2(1)(b) 0ection /(() of the Fraud Act 2006 further explains that/ o gain may include kee ing what one has as well as getting what one does not have /(F) loss includes inducing B to not get what they might get as well as arting with what they do have.

 S.2(1)(b)(ii) intent to e" ose another risk of loss 2n other words gain and loss may be otential or real.

Application# ,anice* a committed vegetarian* laces an advertisement in the 1aily 7lobe news a er* im lying that the hotdogs of +otdiggety1og hotdog manufacturers* actually contain dog meat. The re resentation* which is false* is made in an attem t to damage sales of +otdiggety1og meat roducts. #nswer: This is fraud* because of ,anice%s intention to cause financial damage to +otdiggety1og. 'he intention not to cause a loss to the representee but to expose them to the ris. of loss (this is more unusual .

S.2(1)(b)(ii) $otential or real application #* a mortgage broker* uts false earnings articulars on clients% mortgage forms to induce the lender to lend to her clients. -* an investment banker* s eculates* without his bank%s authority* a huge amount of his bank%s money on a short>term trade in a weak currency* which he ho es will make a huge return the ne"t day > thus advancing his re utation in the com any. #nswer: # is guilty of fraud, although she hopes and expects the lender will profit from her actions. 4er liability turns on the fact that she intends to e" ose the lender to the risk of loss, namely the ris. that the borrowers may default (H & Allsop ($)** .

 - is also guilty of fraud for the same reason. 'he ris. here is that daily currency fluctuations mean that any overambitious currency trading could lose the investing com any millions of ounds. #ndeed the effect of one such (rogue trader( was to ban.rupt <ritain(s oldest in&estment ban., <arings, with a trading loss of L$.7 billion.

(. 1 is acting dishonestly> ob&ective and sub&ective test 'he final mens rea element is that : must be found to be dishonest. For these purposes dishonesty bears the same meaning as for theft 4owe&er, s.2 of the Theft #ct 13G9 does not a ly to the dece tion offences and the meaning of dishonesty must be assessed using the test set out in 7hosh. :ishonesty is a core and important mens rea in all of the new fraud offences. 0aking a false re resentation may by definition be dishonest, since it in&ol&es lying, or, in common parlance, (being dishonest(. There may be unusual circumstances where 1 can convince a &ury that lying would not be considered to be

dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson* but these are likely to be rare.

%hoshs test 1%s dishonesty according to the common law test set out in H & 7hosh =$)+2>. 'he Aourt of Appeal in this case set out a two> art test, which contains both sub&ective and ob&ective elements.

 @ord @ane(s alternati&e approach was to combine sub5ecti&e and ob5ecti&e elements in a two> art test/ o #n determining whether the prosecution has pro&ed that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a 5ury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest eo le what was done was dishonest. o #f it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the rosecution fails. o 2f it was dishonest by those standards, then the &ury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

 'he first art of the test is entirely ob&ective % the conduct is &udged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson. #f the conduct is ob&ectively dishonest then the second part of the test, which is both sub&ective and ob&ective* must be a lied. o 1id 1 himself realise that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson5

Argument: Fraud by FR too broad covered up to commercial mere pu ! #$ no need false re resentation cause the B to buy the roduct. 2f commercial advertisement always mere uff show false re resentation* then #$ is satisfied 0$: 1 may realiHed it is falseEmisleading 1 intent to gain <ntil this oint* may satisfied the elements* however* it might failed in the dishonesty test of sub&ective one 1 may think the reasonable man standard it is honest one

!ffence 2: Fraud by failure to disclose information #$ 'his offence, created by s.( of the Fraud #ct 2006 is rather less contro&ersial and problematic than the s.2 offence. -nder this offence : has committed an offence if he dishonestly fails to disclose information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, with intent to gain for himself or another or cause loss to another. 'here is a degree of o&erlap between this offence and that under s.2. 0ince false re resentations may be im lied and made by silence or omission, then presumably failure to disclose information can be &iewed as a false representation. 4owe&er, s.( is narrower than s.2* because s.! only applies where there is a legal duty to disclose the information.

@egal duty to disclose% ci&il and criminal 'here is no definition of a legal duty under s.! and therefore a ,uestion arises as to where a legal duty may arise. 'he ?aw .ommission themsel&es, in proposing the offence, pro&ided some elucidation on where they en&isaged such a duty would arise/ o such a duty may deri&e from statute...from the fact that the transaction in =uestion is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance , from the e" ress or im lied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the e"istence of a fiduciary relationshi between the parties (such as those of an agent and principal (@aw Aommission Heport Eo. 2*6 (2002 para *.2+ .

 #t can be presumed from this that a duty will arise under s.! where there is a duty to disclose under civil law and in this way the criminal and the civil law are e" ected to coincide.

@egal duty arise e&en though &ictim may consent to the non%disclose information ?aw .ommission: o there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant3s failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non>disclosure. o For e"am le, a erson in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to ma.e such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it.

Eot a moral duty #rt dealer would not commit the offence if they bought a ainting at a car boot sale knowing that the ainting was worth a thousand times the as.ing price, as they have only a moral duty of disclosure.

0$ 'he mens rea elements of this offence consist of dishonesty and intent to make a gain or to cause loss. (s.()

$. 1 intends to make a gain or cause a loss 'his mens rea element is rather more strict and clear. 'here is no recklessness here, 1 must intend a articular conse=uence to result from his false representation. Eote howe&er that this conse=uence does not need to occur.

#ntention but not rec.less #ntention bears its normal meaning in criminal law, that is 1%s ur ose was to gain or cause loss or he foresaw such gain or loss as a virtually certain conse=uence of his actions, in which case the 5ury are entitled to find intent (8oollin . : must intend that the gain or loss is actually caused by his false re resentation, even though the gain or loss may never ha en.

Jain or loss area%moneyKproperty but not the landKnon%pecuniary Section / of the Fraud Act 2006 gi&es further guidance on the ty es of gain and loss which the Act is intended to co&er. Eotice that gain and loss are defined for these purposes entirely in terms of money or other ro erty. 'his definition accords with the definition of ro erty in s.(F(2) Theft #ct $)6+ which a lies to other ro erty offences such as theft itself and blackmail. 0ection !"(2 expressly e"cludes land as a form of property which can apply to this offence. :on> ecuniary gain, such as sexual pleasure or loss, such as damaging C(s reputation, will not suffice.

 0o if 1 makes a false re resentation* for e"am le* intending to embarrass B or with intent to ma.e C late for dinner, then no offence is made out. An intent to obtain a service is dealt with exclusi&ely under s.11 of the Fraud #ct 2))G and is not covered by s.2. -esides* gainEloss may be tem orary or ermanent

Jain or loss meaning A further parallel with s.!"(2 'heft Act $)6+ is the notion that 1 may gain for himself or another. 0ection /(() of the Fraud Act 2006 further explains that/ o gain may include .eeping what one has as well as getting what one does not have o loss includes inducing B to not get what they might get as well as arting with what they do have. #n other words gain and loss may be otential or real.

2. 1 is acting dishonestly> ob&ective and sub&ective test 'he final mens rea element is that : must be found to be dishonest. For these purposes dishonesty bears the same meaning as for theft 4owe&er, s.2 of the Theft #ct 13G9 does not a ly to the dece tion offences and the meaning of dishonesty must be assessed using the test set out in 7hosh. :ishonesty is a core and important mens rea in all of the new fraud offences. 0aking a false re resentation may by definition be dishonest, since it in&ol&es lying, or, in common parlance, (being dishonest(. There may be unusual circumstances where 1 can convince a &ury that lying would not be considered to be

dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson* but these are likely to be rare.

%hoshs test 1%s dishonesty according to the common law test set out in H & 7hosh =$)+2>. 'he Aourt of Appeal in this case set out a two> art test, which contains both sub&ective and ob&ective elements.

 @ord @ane(s alternati&e approach was to combine sub5ecti&e and ob5ecti&e elements in a two> art test/ o #n determining whether the prosecution has pro&ed that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a 5ury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest eo le what was done was dishonest. o #f it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the rosecution fails. o 2f it was dishonest by those standards, then the &ury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

 'he first art of the test is entirely ob&ective % the conduct is &udged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson. #f the conduct is ob&ectively dishonest then the second part of the test, which is both sub&ective and ob&ective* must be a lied. o 1id 1 himself realise that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson5

!verla

in s.2 and s.(

There is a degree of overla between ss.( and 2. For example, is a failure to disclose as re,uested on an application form one3s ad&erse disciplinary record in a pre&ious 5ob a failure to disclose under s.( or is the utting together of the form without this information a false re resentation under s.25 'he answer is robably both.

!ffence (/ Fraud by abuse of osition Section F creates a new offence of fraud by abuse of position. : commits this offence if he occupies a position in which he is e" ected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another erson, and dishonestly abuses that position, intending to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another. 'his is a &ery &ague offence with a potentially wide application. 'he crucial actus reus elements are that : occupies a relevant osition and that he abuses that osition. 'hese elements re,uire some further discussion.

Dosition to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another A precise definition of this phrase cannot be found in the Fraud Act 2006 itself % which remains deliberately open and non% prescripti&e about the types of relationships or positions that the offence may co&er. Again, the ?aw .ommission%s re ort may offer some guidance/ o 'he necessary relationshi will be present between/ trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. within a family, or in the context of &oluntary wor., or in any context where the arties are not at arm%s length.

 Whilst this guidance offers some concrete examples, the sco e of this rovision remains wide. Muite what is meant by (not at arm(s length( is &ery unclear. 'he examples cited in the ;xplanatory Eotes include the em loyee of a software com are who clones software roducts and sells them on pri&atelyN and the em loyed carer who abuses their access to their clientAs bank account. ;E include the behaviour of an em loyee who Ffails to take u the chance of a crucial contract in order that an associate or rival com any can take it u instead at the e" ense of the em loyerG o the employee%employer relationship clearly may has fiduciary ,ualities.

 'he boundaries of the offence will ultimately be determined by 5udicial interpretation in those relationships where it is not absolutely clear whether the defendant occupies in rele&ant position

#n 2pri&iledge position3 'he 6" lanatory :otes refer to the defendant who Ihas been ut in a rivileged ositionJ and who must therefore safeguard* etc. the otherAs financial interests. #t most ob&iously has the potential to apply in professional%client relationships, but the type of relationship countenanced by the offence will also arise, for example, between director and company, and between employee and employer.

Abuse Bnce it is established that 1 is in a relevant osition of trust, the 5ury must then be satisfied that 1 did an act or committed an omission (s.F(2)) which abused that position. Again this term is undefined in the #ct and is left deliberately &ague and wide to co&er all manner of potential circumstances. : must in some way act (or fail to act where he is under a duty to do so through his position in a way which threatens the financial interests of the other party in the relationship. Eote that 1 need not necessarily intend that the loss be suffered by that other arty. 4e may intend to cause a loss to another arty, or for another to make a gain through his acts.

0$ 'he mens rea elements are dishonesty and intent to make a gain or cause a loss and these bear the same meaning as applied to the s.2 offence. 'here is no re=uirement that the defendant be aware that they are under a duty to safeguard the other%s financial interests, although evidence of lack of awareness will, no doubt, influence the &ury%s assessment of dishonesty.

$. 1 intends to make a gain or cause a loss 'his mens rea element is rather more strict and clear. 'here is no recklessness here, 1 must intend a articular conse=uence to result from his false representation. Eote howe&er that this conse=uence does not need to occur.

#ntention but not rec.less #ntention bears its normal meaning in criminal law, that is 1%s ur ose was to gain or cause loss or he foresaw such gain or loss as a virtually certain conse=uence of his actions, in which case the 5ury are entitled to find intent (8oollin . : must intend that the gain or loss is actually caused by his false re resentation, even though the gain or loss may never ha en.

Jain or loss area%moneyKproperty but not the landKnon%pecuniary Section / of the Fraud Act 2006 gi&es further guidance on the ty es of gain and loss which the Act is intended to co&er. Eotice that gain and loss are defined for these purposes entirely in terms of money or other ro erty. 'his definition accords with the definition of ro erty in s.(F(2) Theft #ct $)6+ which a lies to other ro erty offences such as theft itself and blackmail. 0ection !"(2 expressly e"cludes land as a form of property which can apply to this offence. :on> ecuniary gain, such as sexual pleasure or loss, such as damaging C(s reputation, will not suffice.

 0o if 1 makes a false re resentation* for e"am le* intending to embarrass B or with intent to ma.e C late for dinner, then no offence is made out. An intent to obtain a service is dealt with exclusi&ely under s.11 of the Fraud #ct 2))G and is not covered by s.2. -esides* gainEloss may be tem orary or ermanent

Jain or loss meaning A further parallel with s.!"(2 'heft Act $)6+ is the notion that 1 may gain for himself or another. 0ection /(() of the Fraud Act 2006 further explains that/ o gain may include .eeping what one has as well as getting what one does not have o loss includes inducing B to not get what they might get as well as arting with what they do have. #n other words gain and loss may be otential or real.

2. 1 is acting dishonestly> ob&ective and sub&ective test 'he final mens rea element is that : must be found to be dishonest. For these purposes dishonesty bears the same meaning as for theft 4owe&er, s.2 of the Theft #ct 13G9 does not a ly to the dece tion offences and the meaning of dishonesty must be assessed using the test set out in 7hosh. :ishonesty is a core and important mens rea in all of the new fraud offences. 0aking a false re resentation may by definition be dishonest, since it in&ol&es lying, or, in common parlance, (being dishonest(. There may be unusual circumstances where 1 can convince a &ury that lying would not be considered to be

dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson* but these are likely to be rare.

%hoshs test 1%s dishonesty according to the common law test set out in H & 7hosh =$)+2>. 'he Aourt of Appeal in this case set out a two> art test, which contains both sub&ective and ob&ective elements.

 @ord @ane(s alternati&e approach was to combine sub5ecti&e and ob5ecti&e elements in a two> art test/ o #n determining whether the prosecution has pro&ed that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a 5ury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest eo le what was done was dishonest. o #f it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the rosecution fails. o 2f it was dishonest by those standards, then the &ury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

 'he first art of the test is entirely ob&ective % the conduct is &udged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson. #f the conduct is ob&ectively dishonest then the second part of the test, which is both sub&ective and ob&ective* must be a lied. o 1id 1 himself realise that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson5

Application/ -runo* a member of cabin crew for 6asy#ir ?td* sells assengers sandwiches that he made at home* ocketing the roceeds. +e allows the assengers to believe that the sandwiches are made by 6asy#ir catering staff. #t seems clear that anyone who secretly rofits by abusing their osition as an employee of a company will be co&ered by this section. -runo may be said to be in a position to safeguard (or at least not to act against) the financial interests of his em loyer. 'hrough his actions, he intends to make a gain for himself and thereby cause a loss to his em loyer. 4is liability would de end on his acts being deemed to be dishonest under the 7hosh test.

For a &oke* ,ames advises his neighbour* ?en* that a horse running in the 2.() race at .am town ;ark racecourse that afternoon is a %dead cert% to win at good odds. ,ames knows that the horse has come last in the last three races that it has run. ?en laces a bet on the horse but it falls at the first fence. 'his is a rather more difficult e"am le. 'here may be e&idence of dishonesty here and ,ames clearly intends to cause ?en a loss, or at least e" ose him to the risk of loss, but the ,uestion is, is ,ames in a osition to safeguard his neighbour%s financial interests5 #t depends on the nature of their relationship and whether this falls into the category of relationships which the @aw Aommission described as %at arm%s length%.

1oris works as a volunteer in a local charity sho . Someone has donated an old air of shoes to the sho . She likes the shoes so much that she does not ut them on sale* but instead wears them home. :oris is an employee and may be deemed to be in a similar position to <runo in example (a , that is, she is secretly rofiting from her osition as em loyee of the charity shop. 'he fact that she works voluntarily is unlikely to affect the osition of trust in which she is placed in the shop.

+arriet%s father died recently and her uncle 7eorge is administering her father%s will. +arriet has been left '1))*))) to ay for her university education when she reaches the age of 19. +owever* 7eorge believes that +arriet will be more committed to her studies if she has to work for a scholarshi to go to university* so he hands the '1))*))) to a charity on her behalf. 7eorge is the trustee of a trust of which 4arriet is the beneficiary. 4e is therefore clearly in a position in which he is e" ected to safeguard her financial interests and he abuses this osition with intent to cause her loss.

!ffence F/ !btaining services dishonestly #$ 'his offence, contained in s.11 of the #ct, replaces the old offence of obtaining ser&ices by deception. 'he rewriting of this offence was aimed at updating the law so that it covered wholly automated or electronic services. : commits this offence if he obtains a service for himself or another by dishonest act and that ser&ice has been, is being or will be aid for, but the defendant does not ay for it, either in art or in full. #n other words free services are not covered by the offence. o (11)(2)(a)> service must be get in ayment

:ishonest to get the ser&ice but not the monetary &alue Although the ser&ices would ordinarily be paid for, what 1 (or another) obtains through his dishonesty is the service itself and not the monetary value of the ser&ice. 'his offence may be confused with a s.2 offence (ma.ing a gain through a false representation . 4owe&er, under this offence 1 obtains the benefit of the service for free (or a reduced price , but he does not obtain the money that the ser&ice is worth. #f, for example, 1 obtains the rovision of hotel accommodation dishonestly* he has dishonestly induced the hotel into allowing him to stay there, he has not gained the cost of the hotel accommodation.

Eo need false representation Eote that there does not need to be any false re resentation on the part of the defendant in order to commit this offence. #ny form of dishonesty will suffice. :ishonesty bears the same meaning as that applied to s.2.

0$> need causal lin& btw dishonesty and the service 'he mens rea re,uirements are that 1 obtains these services by dishonesty (1) (so a causal link must be established between the obtaining of services and 1%s dishonesty and 1 might knowE knows (2) that the services are not meant to be free and intent (() ayment not be madeEnot made in full o <nder Ss.11(2) <nlike fraud* where the IgainJ or IlossJ need not actually occur

1 is acting dishonestly> ob&ective and sub&ective test 'he final mens rea element is that : must be found to be dishonest. For these purposes dishonesty bears the same meaning as for theft 4owe&er, s.2 of the Theft #ct 13G9 does not a ly to the dece tion offences and the meaning of dishonesty must be assessed using the test set out in 7hosh. :ishonesty is a core and important mens rea in all of the new fraud offences. 0aking a false re resentation may by definition be dishonest, since it in&ol&es lying, or, in common parlance, (being dishonest(. There may be unusual circumstances where 1 can convince a &ury that lying would not be considered to be

dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson* but these are likely to be rare.

%hoshs test 1%s dishonesty according to the common law test set out in H & 7hosh =$)+2>. 'he Aourt of Appeal in this case set out a two> art test, which contains both sub&ective and ob&ective elements.

 @ord @ane(s alternati&e approach was to combine sub5ecti&e and ob5ecti&e elements in a two> art test/ o #n determining whether the prosecution has pro&ed that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a 5ury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest eo le what was done was dishonest. o #f it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the rosecution fails. o 2f it was dishonest by those standards, then the &ury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

 'he first art of the test is entirely ob&ective % the conduct is &udged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson. #f the conduct is ob&ectively dishonest then the second part of the test, which is both sub&ective and ob&ective* must be a lied. o 1id 1 himself realise that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson5

Application: dishonest obtain but no alse R ;xplanatory Eotes3 example of climbing over a wall to watch a football match for which other s ectators have aid an entrance fee "o need alse representation 1 who attaches a decoder to their television to access subscri tion services such as satellite channels <sing false credit card details to ay but in fact no ayment can be done +aving a haircut without aying.

!btaining chargeable data or software (e.g. music downloads) over the internet without aying. <sing the services of a members% club without aying and without being a member

1 arks her car in a ay>and> dis lay car ark. She does not ay for a ticket* ho ing that she will return before a ticket ins ector arrives. <nder the Theft #ct 13K9 this would not be an offence under s.2 as no false re resentation has been made. 2t is* however* an offence under s.11 because 1 has obtained a service and her conduct is dishonest

Application: dishonest obtain also alse R !rdering a meal in a restaurant knowing you have no means to ay (also fraud by false re resentation). #dam arks his car in a ay and lay car ark. 6ve* who is about to leave the car ark* gives #dam her une" ired ticket. #dam laces the ticket on his windscreen. #dam is guilty under s.11. +e is also guilty of fraud by false re resentation. -y utting the ticket on his windscreen he is im liedly re resenting that he has aid for it. The gain he makes is kee ing the fee due.

0ary untruthfully tells the sales assistant in a cinema that she is underage so as to be allowed in at a lower rice. Since 0ary is not a minor* she is guilty of fraud by false re resentation. The gain she intends to make is the money she is enabled to kee in her ocket by her false re resentation as to her age. She is also guilty of obtaining services dishonestly. ( ay less also included)

Argument application: #se other$s usable credits card to pay Brmerod suggests, the difficulty is that the offence re,uires that the services be obtained Iwithout any ayment having been made for or in res ect of them or without ayment having been made in fullJ +owever the service is obtained recisely because ayment is madeOby the card issuer Cbut not by 1D. Brmerod suggests that such beha&iour would nonetheless be caught by s.2 (fraud by false representation on the basis that the defendant intends to e" ose the card issuer to a risk of loss of a nature which would be co&ered by s.7 (a loss of propertyOin this case money). <ut the service itself is not %propertyG for the purpose of s.7 and hence could not be the proper basis of a fraud charge

 0o better charge under loss of money =in credit card>

!ffence /: 0aking off without ayment 'his offence is set out in s.( of the Theft #ct 13K9. 'his offence does not re=uire a dece tion, but was created to close a loophole in the law disco&ered in :DD & Hay =$)*!>. 'he offence is defined as/ A person who, .nowing that ayment on the s ot for any goods su lied or service done is re=uired or e" ected of him, dishonestly makes off without having aid as re,uired or expected and with intent to avoid ayment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.

$. 0ust 0ake off Cde art from aymentD although no need done with stealth : must (ma.e off( although <roo.s and <roo.s ($)+2 ma.es it clear that this need not be done by stealth. 'hese words should bear their ordinary meaning % that some form of de arture from the s ot where ayment is re=uired or expected. #n this case, : boldly stood u walked out of a restaurant without aying. and

2. 2S otA no need precisely interpreted it is where the payment re,uired =taxi case> Dayment must be re,uired or e" ected %on the s ot%. First, there is no need to identify a recise (spot( where payment is re,uired. #n #HiH =$))!>, : as.ed a ta"i dri&er to ta.e him to a club $! miles away. Bn arri&al at the club 1 refused to ay the dri&er, so the driver drove to the nearest olice station. Bn arri&al at the police station 1 ran out of the ta"i but was caught. 1 claimed he had not made off from the %s ot% where ayment was re=uired as that %s ot% was the final destination of the &ourney.

o That mean he still in the surrounding of olice station* still in the @s otA

 'he court re&ected this argument and held that in this case the %s ot% where ayment was re=uired was while 1 was sitting in the ta"i, at any destination where ayment was re=uested. #t is the %s ot% at which ayment is re=uested* such as within a restaurant (as opposed to sitting at the table for example. o So when no re=uested the ayment on the s ot* even intent to make off is no offence

.ontrast/ if the ser&ice not legally enforceable, e&en ma.e off the spot, no offence Troughton where the defendant had allegedly made off without aying a ta"i fare, it was fatal to the prosecutor3s case that the ta"i driver had broken his contract by not taking the accused to the desired destination. #n those circumstances he was in no osition to demand ayment on the s ot. 4owe&er, if from the outset P and 'roughton intended not to pay, they would probably commit the offence of fraud.Cother offenceD

.ontrast/ =restaurant case> spot included whole restaurant% wea. argument 0c1avitt the court held that the Is otJ was constituted by the restaurant itselfN although the e"act location will de end u on the circumstances of each case. #n moving towards the door after re&ected the bills and intending to decam without aying, : had taken more than merely re aratory ste s towards the commission of the full substanti&e offence. =attempt> &ontrast with 'roo(s and 'roo(s the another restaurant court im licitly treated the Is otJ as being embodied by the actual cash oint rather than the restaurant itself. o 'owever( in this case( ) had gone out

 0oberly v #llso % ma.e off tic(et barrier )ithout payment a ter train trip convicted even though not yet made o rom the o ice

Aommentary it seems that the concept of FspotG was a vacillating one. What will constitute ma.ing off will de end u on the facts of the individual caseN but there will be no difficulty in holding that a person who runs out of a restaurant without paying has Fmade offG(.

2Bn the spot3 may mean paid in future as well as long as C agreed despite it may obtained by deception 0econd, ayment %on the s ot% may not be re=uired or expected where 1 has made an arrangement to ay later, e&en though payment would usually be re,uired on the spot. #n Bincent =200$>, : stayed in a hotel but on lea&ing agreed with the manager that, as he was e" ecting to be aid some money in the near future, he could pay his bill at a later date. Although guests would normally be expected to pay (on the spot(, but there was no such re=uirement in this case as 1 had agreed not to ay on the s ot to with the manager. #t was held that an agreement made before the time when payment would normally be expected was ca able of defeating the e" ectation of an Ion the s otJ ayment.

 #n such circumstances it was irrelevant that the agreement was dishonestly obtained by the defendant3s deception. #n this situation, it is still possible to charge him under other offences 'here were at the time a multiplicity of other theft offences, assuming the defendant3s dishonesty, which might cogently ha&e been brought by the prosecution. o :, by continuing to stay at the hotel, once he had formed a dishonest intention of not paying the full bill, would appear to ha&e been guilty of obtaining services by deception( contrary to s*l of the +heft Act ,-./ (false representation

s.((()> if the goodsKser&ice is unlawful, such payment is not legally enforceable P has 5ust had intercourse with a prostitute who now re,uires payment. P simply wal.s off saying, F'a.e me to court and try to get your money.G 4owe&er, s.!(! pro&ides that if the supply of goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law, or if the ser&ice done is such that payment is not legally enforceable, then the offence is not committed. +ere the rostitute would not be able to sue L to recover damages for breach of contract and so L commits no offence when he wal.s off.

 'hus, in Troughton, where the defendant had allegedly made off without aying a ta"i fare, it was fatal to the prosecutor3s case that the ta"i driver had broken his contract by not taking the accused to the desired destination. #n those circumstances he was in no osition to demand ayment on the s ot. 4owe&er, if from the outset P and 'roughton intended not to pay, they would probably commit the offence of fraud.Cother offenceD

0$ : must intend to avoid ayment and @dishonestlyA make off. 1. 2ntent mean intent to never ay #n #llen =$)+7> it was affirmed that this means 1 must have an intention never to ay* rather than an intention to ay later.

2. 1 is acting dishonestly> ob&ective and sub&ective test 'he final mens rea element is that : must be found to be dishonest. For these purposes dishonesty bears the same meaning as for theft 4owe&er, s.2 of the Theft #ct 13G9 does not a ly to the dece tion offences and the meaning of dishonesty must be assessed using the test set out in 7hosh. :ishonesty is a core and important mens rea in all of the new fraud offences. 0aking a false re resentation may by definition be dishonest, since it in&ol&es lying, or, in common parlance, (being dishonest(. There may be unusual circumstances where 1 can convince a &ury that lying would not be considered to be

dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson* but these are likely to be rare.

%hoshs test 1%s dishonesty according to the common law test set out in H & 7hosh =$)+2>. 'he Aourt of Appeal in this case set out a two> art test, which contains both sub&ective and ob&ective elements.

 @ord @ane(s alternati&e approach was to combine sub5ecti&e and ob5ecti&e elements in a two> art test/ o #n determining whether the prosecution has pro&ed that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a 5ury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest eo le what was done was dishonest. o #f it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the rosecution fails. o 2f it was dishonest by those standards, then the &ury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.

 'he first art of the test is entirely ob&ective % the conduct is &udged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson. #f the conduct is ob&ectively dishonest then the second part of the test, which is both sub&ective and ob&ective* must be a lied. o 1id 1 himself realise that his conduct was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable erson5

lication:

7 ays for a re air to his car with a che=ue which he knows will be dishonoured when presented. The garage owner* however* is =uite ha y and hands 7 the keys to the car and 7 leaves intending never to ay. 2f 1 dishonestly make off with the intent never to ay* then he will be liable 2t is different with the Bincent case that the manager agreed with him ay in the future +owever* if 1 only intent to ay in the future* but for tem orary* then he may esca e the liability +e may charged under other offences

Application 2/ L by bus arrived at the destination but due to full assenger* the staff cannot reach him and sold the ticket L gets out of the train and walks off without aying. +e clearly makes off without aying 4owe&er, the section re=uires that the accused should have acted dishonestly and with intent to a&oid payment. 9ou will recall Ahat the word FdishonestlyJ is a =uestion of fact for the &ury N they will ha&e to consider whether people in general would regard such conduct as dishonest and, if so, whether the defendant .new that this conduct would be so regarded by people in general.

 #t is therefore =uite on the cards that a &ury would not find the accused to have acted dishonestly. Further it is rather hard to say that he made off with the intention of avoiding ayment. ;xperience may ha&e taught him that it is not advisable to stay on the train to look for the guard since the train will robably move on as soon as other passengers ha&e dismounted. .learly if he gets off at an earlier station because he sees that the guard will reach him before the train gets to destination then it will be ossible to say that he has dishonestly made off with intent to avoid ayment. 'his may also be the osition if, when he alights from the train at destination, he sees the guard standing on the latform ready to receive fares from those who have not yet aid and then

deliberately avoids ta.ing the opportunity to pay.

Summary 'his section has outlined the &arious deception offences under the 'heft Acts $)6+ and $)*+. ;ach offence is distinguished by what : obtains through each offence. 4owe&er, for each offence : must practise a deception which is operati&e on C and which induces C to confer onto : whate&er is obtained. Anything obtained by : under one of these offences must be obtained dishonestly. 1a.ing off without payment must also be committed dishonestly but does not re,uire the practice of a deception.