Why is Conspiracy to Defraud used instead of the Fraud Act offences?
The Attorney General (a major government adviser on legal practice), has stated that the new Fraud Act offences (designed to include specific types of modern fraud) should always be used in preference to Conspiracy unless: a) The Fraud Act offences don’t reflect the nature of the offence – this could include situations in which a fraud has definitely taken place, and the accused appear guilty, but it is difficult to say with certainty who did what, but that a plan certainly existed, and therefore a conspiracy. This can be particularly relevant in high tech frauds where the data or equipment examined does not give much of a clue as to who actually comitted the offence itself. b) Where splitting the case into the different Fraud Act offences might require a confusing number of different charges or separate trials. This would make the case both needlessly complicated and expensive. Other types of agreements which could result in the prosecution choosing to use conspiracy to defraud includ
Related Questions
- What are our shared responsibilities for ensuring that all funds under the ARRA are used for authorized purposes and instances of fraud, waste, and abuse are prevented?
- Can the Mitigation 20/20™ programs be used to comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000?
- What are the offences that created the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001?
