The UK's Fraud Act of 2006 is a law that applies to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Following the Act's assent on November 8, 2006, execution of the law began on January 15, 2007. The eight fraud offenses that were present in the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 were replaced by this legislation. Before the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006, the prior legislation was subject to a great deal of criticism. In response to censure, the UK Law Commission created a report on the fraud. (Williams, 2007). People were made aware of the issues with the prior law thanks to the report. According to the report, it was noted that there were numerous offences contrary to just a single offence. Nevertheless, the introduction of the Fraud Act 2006 led to different arguments between those who supported and opposed the Act. This paper evaluates the validity of the main arguments put forward for the passage of the Fraud Act 2006.
Arguments for the passage of the Fraud Act 2006
Different arguments were made for the passage of the Fraud Act 2006. For instance, it was argued that some of the offences outlined under the Theft Act 1968 were not easy for the courts of law to effect. As a result, it needed the help of Parliament to address the issues. Section 16 (a) of the Theft Act 1968 was replaced by the 1978 Theft Act. Nevertheless, it did not have a substantial effect since it exacerbated the issues of individual and overlapping offences that existed under the 1968 Theft Act (Adungo, 2009). According to the case of Preddy, it established that trying to correct the law might just offer a less and provisional than the most favourable solution. In case the law was to adopt the current changes and technology and offer an effective solution to the 2006 Fraud Act, then it needed a long-term technique. The long-term technique was adopted through the 2006 Act whose main aim was to clarify and modernize the law so as to ensure that it is up to date with the current technological changes that are associated with the manner in which the fraud was carried out (Biegelman, 2009).
A new offence of fraud was introduced under section one of the Fraud Act 2006. There are three different ways in which the offence could be carried out. For instance, it could be through abuse of position, failure to disclose information, and false representation (Tarling, 2007).
Fraud by False Representation
A Fraud by False Representation is an offence committed by an individual in case he deceitfully makes a sham representation with the main aim of gaining of causing another individual to lose. According to the Fraud by False Representation, it does not need to be an authentic loss. Besides, the alleged victims of the fraud do not need to believe on the sham representation in order for the fraud to have been carried out. In order for a representation to be untrue, it is essential for the authors of such statements to understand that they are misleading or false (Koehler, 2010). This section of the act is developed to grasp representations, for instance, promotions of a scheme that involves a high risk of investments. As a result, it would not be easy to validate that the defendant in the case was aware that the representation was actually false. It is very easier to demonstrate that he knew such representation was not true. This section of the 2006 Fraud Act is particularly appropriate when it involves prosecution of boiler room offences. Within the present economic environment, it has actually become very efficient in the trial of the suspected mortgage fraud (Herson, 2006).
Fraud by Failure to Disclose
According to the Fraud by Failure to Disclose, an individual deceitfully fails to divulge to another individual any information that he is abounding to divulge. Therefore, he aims to cause loss or gain for himself. It is a fraud that demands the Crown to find out if the defendant in the case was compelled to make certain types of information disclosure. It is upon the Crown to find out this by giving evidence pertaining to the association between suspected victims and defendants. For instance, the legal task to divulge information might occur due to the contract that exists between the parties involved. The aim of the non-disclosure of information has to cause loss of make gain. This type of fraud is comprehensively provided the defendant does not divulge information that he has a legal duty to divulge. Information should be divulged provided that the non-disclosure of information had dishonest objectives. According to the fraud, it actually does not matter whether an individual is misled or in case any type of property is really lost or gained. The website of Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) indicates that it is an issue to be created by the presiding judge in the case. As a matter of fact, it is not clear due to the fact that it does not outline such scenario in the statute. It is an issue that would not compromise as an issue that could risk the criminalization of what might lead to the civil disputes before the enactment of the Fraud Act 2006 (Ramage, 2007).
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Fraud by Abuse of Position is an offence that is carried out by an individual who holds a particular job position where he or she is anticipated to protect against any other financial interest however they deceitfully abuse such kinds of positions. Some of the examples provided by CPS constituted a worker of a software firm who deceitfully used his rank to duplicate the software products of the company for his individual advantages (Tunley et al, 2014). This is an offence that might cover different issues of corruption that involves bribes. As a result, it raised the issues of dishonesty that might negatively affect the organization. The Fraud by Abuse of Position makes it vital that any individual facing themselves is able to take into consideration for all the components of their individual behaviours (Savirimuthu 2007).
The Fraud Act 2006 has numerous benefits that contributed to its passage by the UK parliament. For instance, it enables the jurors to fully understand the different components of the law. In addition, it also helps in the removal of over particularization of the offences as well as duplication of the condemnation. Whereas there are other recognizable benefits of the 2006 Act, the main aim of the differences offences enhances some form of amazement (Levi et al, 2011).
In addition, the 2006 Fraud Act established other frauds that were supposed to be enacted in the court of law. For instance, the offences included ownership of different articles used in executing fraud as well as deceitfully acquiring services (Levi, 2007). The fraud of deceitfully acquiring services substituted the previous frauds outlined in the Act of 1978 of acquiring services through dishonesty. The replacement of the fraud demonstrates that the trial in the courts does not actually have to validate any form of dishonesty that was used in the previous Act (Farrell, Ladenburg, & Yeo, 2007).
Despite the fact that the Fraud Act 2006 was passed, there are still other non-Fraud Act offences that courts still prosecute through the use of the previous laws because of the date of enacting the Fraud Act. The principles used in the laws are similar even though the actual legal evaluation might not be the same (Biegelman, 2009). There is the issue of a scheme of the common law to deceive that has to be stated. In addition, it has to be acknowledged that there are issues of tax offences, fraudulent trading, and false accounting. These are probably some of the worst recognized frauds in the implementation of the laws (Draper, Ibezim, & Newton, 2017).
Widely speaking, after the enactment of the Fraud Act 2006, the defendants in the financial allegation cases in the UK will examine the business practices and behavioural patterns of the defendants. The main issue in the cases is honesty. For instance, in a financial case, an individual might make a genuine mistake in one invoice however numerous mistakes might be considered as a deliberate mistake. An auditor or accountant might be compelled to explain to judges about the commercial risks incurred in the deliberate attempts to deceive an organization. It normally makes a lot of sense for the counsel and solicitors to fully understand the compelling issues that are involved in forensic accounting (Summers, 2011). It is not right just to ask forensic accountants to examine financial misappropriation. Evidence provided by professionals might be very essential in resolving the issues pertaining to financial fraud. Therefore, financial professionals need to have energies that concentrated mainly on some of the most appropriate regions. For instance, an individual who seems to split the monies between different bank accounts prior to withdrawal can illustrate that it is not correct to implement the case. It can demonstrate that the behaviour is regular and nobody has questioned it previously (Button, 2011).
Conclusion
The Fraud Act 2006 is an act that has helped to address the problems that were experienced in the previous laws of 1968 and 1978 Act. It offers a legal definition of different criminal offences of fraud that are committed by an individual. The law was defined in three different categories such as the fraud by abuse of position, failure to disclose information, and fraud by false representation. The 2006 Act offered that an individual found culpable of the deception was legally responsible for the detention for about one year. The law mainly substitutes the previous laws that relate to acquiring through dishonesty and acquiring pecuniary benefits. The offences outlined in the law led to some form of criticism due to their intricacy and complication to prove them at the courts of laws. Most sections of the 1978 Theft Act have actually been repealed however it has not impacted differences offences without making any form of payments. In conclusion, the three fraud categories demand that an individual has to deceit in order to establish whether a particular offence was carried out.
References
Adungo, B. (2009). Will the Fraud Act 2006 'Get the Law Right?': A Study of the Effectiveness of Applying Criminal Sanctions to Penalise Fraud in the 'Commercial Sphere'. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1324727
Biegelman, M. (2009). Identity theft handbook. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Button, M. (2011). Fraud investigation and the ‘flawed architecture’ of counter fraud entities in the United Kingdom. International Journal Of Law, Crime And Justice, 39(4), 249-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2011.06.001
Draper, M., Ibezim, V., & Newton, P. (2017). Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK). International Journal For Educational Integrity, 13(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5
Farrell, S., Ladenburg, G., & Yeo, N. (2007). Blackstone's guide to the Fraud Act 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herson, D. (2006). The changing face of international cryptography policy Part 2 — The United Kingdom. Computer Fraud & Security, 1999(7), 10-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1361-3723(99)80041-4
Koehler, M. (2010). A Conversation with Richard Alderman - Director of the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1687299
Levi, M. (2007). Crisis? What crisis? Reactions to commercial fraud in the United Kingdom. Contemporary Crises, 11(3), 207-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00728636
May, T., Jack, M., Hutton, M., & Miller, D. (2011). Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings, and usage of Parliament. London: LexisNexis.
Ramage, S. (2007). United Kingdom Fraud Trials (Without a Jury) Bill 2007- Annotated Even Though Abandoned after Second Parliamentary Reading. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1114991
Savirimuthu, J. (2007). Identity Theft and Systems Theory: The Fraud Act 2006 in Perspective. SCRIPT-Ed, 4(4), 436-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.2966/scrip.040407.436
Summers, B. (2011). The Fraud Act 2006: has it had any impact?. Amicus Curiae, 2008(75). http://dx.doi.org/10.14296/ac.v2008i75.1180
Tarling, P. (2007). Grounds for Co‐operation: The Investigation of Fraud in the United Kingdom. Managerial Auditing Journal, 6(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686909110000143
Tunley, M., Whittaker, A., Gee, J., & Button, M. (2014). The Accredited Counter Fraud Specialist Handbook. Hoboken: Wiley.
Williams, C. (2007). US bar association dissatisfied with new computer fraud act. Computer Fraud & Security Bulletin, 9(11), 7-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-0496(87)90046-4
