Fraud: Part 1

It's a slippery issue to define, Fraud. I remember early on in my training having to remember a definition along these line; by way of deception to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? A little bit easier to remember is that it's just theft with deception thrown into the mix.

I thought I would talk a little about this offence, particularly given the increasing problems with MP's expenses which is causing so much public interest. But fraud is pretty much part of public life - and probably always has been. I remember some years ago visiting Lancaster Castle. I was surprised to learn that it is still a working prison and crown court today. It was a very interesting tour, and one the the things that struck me was a book they had on display in the drop room (where they hung prisoners). This book was a ledger of various crimes heard at the court sometimes in the early C19th. I was quite surprised to see that the majority of crimes were actually fraud. Offences ranged from coin trimming to insurance frauds.



Look at the above image of an old Roman Coin. See how rough it is round the edges. Well a 'trimmer' would take the excess off. Trim enough coins and you soon have enough metal to make your own, and without the original coins losing any value (I've struggled to find any sources on the net about this, so if anyone knows any links, please let me know and I'll add them in). Insurance fraud became particularly commonplace in towns like Manchester during the economic slumps - - unproductive mills and warehouses had an unnerving habit of suddenly going up in flames. So it's nothing particularly new, then.

When looking at a deception or fraud offence, the first thing you do is find out if a party was 'permanently deprived' of their property. If you at satisfied that they were, then you have to look at whether the deprivation was conducted 'dishonestly'. It is not just the act of deprivation that is important as much as the state of mind of the offending party - could it be judged that they were dishonest?

The test for dishonesty is Mens Rea (a very good explanation here) . At the top end of the scale you have direct intention - the deliberate planning and intention to deprive a person of their property. One down from this is oblique intention - no specific plan, but the offender was fairly certain of the consequences of their actions would result in deprivation. Next down is recklessness - the offender foresees what the consequences of their actions could be but doesn't take any measures to prevent it happening. The last one is that of carelessness or criminal negligence - they didn't forsee the consequences of their actions, but a reasonable person in their position would have.

Do you think that Mens Rea applies in the cases of the MP's and their expenses difficulties? Let me know! I'll post more on this later.