How Serious is the Problem: Fraud Act 2006 - Essay Example

How Serious is the Problem: Fraud Act 2006 Every culture and every society needs laws to maintain order and a peaceful relationship among the constituents. Laws are passed for a more coordinated coexistence among the people and to promote unity among them. And while culture slowly evolves, so does everything that goes with it- values, beliefs, practices, people’s behaviors and attitude. This is reflected on how, from time to time, national laws and ordinances are amended-to suit the people’s lifestyles. As changes in the society happen, the need to modify certain rules also arise. For instance, in 1997, Section 16 (2) (a) of the Theft Act 1968 was repealed due to its interpretation and application which had given problems in the courts. What replaced this section were three new offences: obtaining services by deception, evasion of liability by deception, and making off without payment (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-7961%28197905%2942%3A3%3C301%3 ATA1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&size=LARGE). One of the laws that govern the prevention of this felony is the Theft Act 1968, which was given Royal Assent on July 26, 1968. This law was the result of the efforts of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to reform the English law of theft. This English law included the Larceny Act in 1916 but this only involved a complex number of offences that were not quite usable and applicable because of their complexity. The Theft Act 1968 was made to replace this complicated law with a single law that created a more coherent body of principles that allowed a law to evolve and meet new situations. (Answers.com, n.d.). However, by the year 1978, some amendments with the Theft Act 1968 were made. This is due to the insufficiency of the laws included in the latter. Prior to the enactment of the Theft Act 1968, the taking and carrying away of a property was required by the English law as the cause of an offence. However, to broaden the reach of the law of theft, the Parliament (1968) required only an appropriation. The misinterpretation and application of the term “appropriates” in Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 has aroused court problems and received criticism from lawyers (House of Lords, 2000). The reason for the difficult judgment of this case is the simplicity in the definition of ‘theft’ which makes the appellant’s statements easily acceptable. The Theft Act needs more and clearer limitations to make the statement of verdicts easier and faster. This eventually led to more provisions made and included in the act to extend the meaning of the expressions. Certain sections such as Section 15 (1) (A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another) were inserted. This section has also presented conditions that state when a transaction is merely a money transfer or a fraudulent activity, and eventually led to the birth of The Fraud Act. Still deemed to be insufficient, and with the lack of a specific criminal offence of fraud, the efforts to formulate a decree that would cover crimes which were unsolved. Before the Theft Act 1978 was amended and Fraud Act 2006 was born, the UK encountered problems regarding the costly fraud cases. Problems that the police usually encounter include having to use conspiracy to defraud or obtaining money by deception as substitutes for the more appropriate regulation which are not available in the UK law. Other setback include the under-resourcing of fraud squads, the failure to continue of trials involving fraud because of the lack of evidence or due to the complexity of the law, and the better and more sophisticated fraudsters. Criminals who commit crimes such as the aforementioned cause distress and confusion among the people. As another effort on the part of the UK government, the Queen, in her speech, has included new legislation, which are said to simplify fraud trials, stiffen the national strategy in fraud and reopen the question of judge-only trials for fraudsters. These are aimed at developing the 1) Fraud Act, which includes an offence of fraud (the first time in more than 150 years), whether by false representation, abuse of position or failing to disclose information, and (2) the Fraud Review which attempted to answer critics who argue with some force that the key problem does not lie in the tools offered but the resources available to use them (Joynt, 2006). This new act presents a different and a more general offence of fraud which involves false representation, failing to disclose information, and a vague common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. This means that fraud does not only deal with deception or divulging false information, but also NOT disclosing information. This is helpful when existing laws are inadequate in solving deception offences or fraudulent activities that are too overlapping and complicated. Specifically, the Fraud Act 2006 made amendments such as the abolition of the various deception offences in the Theft Act 1968, which includes obtaining property by deception (Section 15), obtaining a money transfer by deception (section 15A), obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (Section 16), procuring the execution of the valuable security by deception. In the Theft Act 1978, Sections 1 and 2, or obtaining services by deception and evasion of liability by deception respectively were also omitted (Law Teacher, n.d.). The Fraud Act 2006 came up due to the purpose of wanting to clarify certain terms that were insufficient and had confusing definitions. Section 1 of this new act repeals all the deception offences in the original acts to replace them with, as mentioned earlier, a single offence of fraud which can be committed in three different ways: a) false representation, b) failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3), and abuse of position (Section 4). Looking deeper into the modifications made with the previous acts and looking for common elements which were changed with the acts, it is apparent that most of the reasons include terms with subliminal meanings. The changes also involve provisions or issues regarding deception and the, disclosing of information and false representation. To illustrate the problems with the decrees passed earlier, let us take for example, Section 2 of the Fraud Act. This is a statement about false representation. False here is defined as misleading or untrue since questions regarding a person’s intention while committing that “false representation” has to be considered. To further consider that representation a crime, the case has to be scrutinized whether it does involve dishonesty and the appellant has the intention to gain something or a loss of something has been caused. The second provision or offence included in the Fraud Act 2006 involves the disclosure of information. To make this provision less, if not, confusing, there has to be the legal duty to disclose information. However, if proven that the appellant refused to disclose information with the intentions of gaining something or for personal interest, or has cause risk or loss of something to another person, then it is clear that a fraudulent act was committed. Laws serve to maintain peace, order and control within a society. There will be instances when decrees need to be amended for a more efficient and effective implementation and enforcement. The case of the Theft Act 1968, which was modified to become Theft Act 1978, and later changed to become known as the Fraud Act 2006, is a demonstration of how different laws may change and evolve. However, in the end, the purpose of having legislations that wholly encompass almost, if not all, sorts of crime. WORKS CITED Answer.Com (n.d.). Theft Act 1968. Retrieved April 26, 2007 from http://www.answers.com/ topic/theft-act-1968 CIFAS Online (n.d.) How Serious is the Problem. Retrieved April 26, 2007 from http://www. cifas.org.uk/identity_fraud_is_theft_serious.asp#tackling House of Lords (2000). Hinks (Appeal From the Court of Appeal). Retrieved April 30, 2007 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd001026/hinks-1.htm Joynt JS. (2006). BBC News: Queen’s Speech Heralds Food. Retrieved April 26, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6147596.stm Law Teacher (n.d.). Theft Act 1978. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from http://www.lawteacher.net/ Criminal/Property%20Offences/Theft%20Act%201978.htm OutLaw News (2006). Phishing Kits Banned by Fraud Act. Retrieved April 25, 2007 from http://www.out-law.com/page-7469 Syrota, G. (1979) The Modern Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 3. Retrieved April 25, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00267961%28197905%2942%3A3%3C301%3 ATA1%3E2. 0.CO%3B2-E&size=LARGE Read More