This storyboard does not have a description.
The Fraud Act 2006 was intended to focus on the mind of the victim, rather than the mind of the offender. Under the old law it was necessary to prove that the deception had acted on the victim.
For example that he/she would not have parted with the goods but for the deception. This created difficulties as technology developed and the use of credit cards and payment through machines or over the internet became widespread.
There are a number of differences between the old and the new law. Under the old law the point was the Defendants conduct which was used to deceive the victim which in turn cause V to do the inappropriate act. Under Section 2 of the new act there is no requirement to prove that the victim or another person believed the representation or acted on it.
Another main difference between the old and the new law are that in the old law, deception offences required that the defendant obtained something as a result of his deception. However, in the new act under the offence of fraud by false representation it is not a requirement that the defendant obtain anything.
Sentencing: Fraud Act 2006 (Section 1) Fraud by false representation Fraud by failing to disclose information Fraud by abuse of position
Conspiracy of defraud, Common law: Maximum 10 years False accounting, Theft Act 1968 (s17): maximum 7 years
Explore Our Articles and Examples
Try Our Other Websites!
Photos for Class
– Search for School-Safe, Creative Commons Photos (It Even Cites for You!
– Easily Make and Share Great-Looking Rubrics
– Create Custom Nursery Art