Fraud As Defined In The Fraud Act 2006: S2 – Fraud By False Representation – Actus Reus And Mens Rea (Copy)
Fraud As Defined In The Fraud Act 2006: s2 – Fraud By False Representation – Actus Reus And Mens Rea
(England And Wales — Statutes & Case Law Only — Tabular, Quick-Revision, Examiner-Focused)
Statutory Definition (s2 Fraud Act 2006)
| Statute | Provision | Legal Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud Act 2006 s2(1) | Fraud by false representation | Creates offence |
| Fraud Act 2006 s2(2) | Meaning of “false” | Objective falsity |
| Fraud Act 2006 s2(3) | Representation may be implied | Broad scope |
| Fraud Act 2006 s2(4) | Representation as to state of mind | Includes intention/belief |
Structure Of The Offence
| Component | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Actus reus | Making a false representation |
| Mens rea | Dishonesty + knowledge/belief of falsity + intent to make gain or cause loss |
| Completion | Offence complete on making representation |
ACTUS REUS
1. “Representation”
| Issue | Authority | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Form | s2(3) | Express or implied |
| Medium | s2(3) | Words, conduct, electronic |
| Silence | Common law | May amount to implied representation |
- Includes:
- Spoken or written statements
- Online entries
- Use of cards, accounts, devices
- Can be implied by conduct
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| DPP v Ray (1974) | Continuing representation |
| R v Lambie (1982) | Using credit card implies authority |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
2. “False” Representation
| Rule | Authority | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Untrue or misleading | s2(2)(a) | Objectively false |
| D knows or believes false | s2(2)(b) | Links to mens rea |
- A representation is false if it is:
- Factually untrue, or
- Misleading in context
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v Jones (2010) | Misleading conduct qualifies |
3. Representation As To Fact, Law Or State Of Mind
| Type | Authority | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | s2(4) | “I own this car” |
| Law | s2(4) | “This contract is valid” |
| State of mind | s2(4) | “I intend to repay” |
- Future intention can be represented
- Dishonest promises fall within s2
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v Cornelius (2012) | False intention sufficient |
4. To Whom The Representation Is Made
| Rule | Authority |
|---|---|
| Any person or system | s2(5) |
| Includes automated systems | s2(5) |
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v Button (2011) | ATM/computer systems included |
MENS REA
1. Dishonesty
| Authority | Principle |
|---|---|
| Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) | Objective dishonesty test |
| R v Barton (2020) | Criminal application of Ivey |
- Test:
- Ascertain D’s knowledge/belief of facts
- Apply objective standards of ordinary people
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
2. Knowledge Or Belief That Representation Is False
| Requirement | Authority | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | s2(2)(b) | Actual awareness |
| Belief | s2(2)(b) | Acceptance of falsity |
- Suspicion alone is insufficient
- D must know or believe falsity
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v Augunas (2013) | Knowledge/belief essential |
3. Intent To Make A Gain Or Cause A Loss
| Rule | Authority |
|---|---|
| Gain or loss | s2(1)(b) |
| Meaning | s5 Fraud Act 2006 |
| Term | Definition (s5) |
|---|---|
| Gain | Money or other property |
| Loss | Money or other property |
| Nature | Temporary or permanent |
| Beneficiary | D or another |
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| R v Seager; R v Blatch (2009) | No need for actual gain/loss |
- Only intention required
- Actual gain or loss not necessary
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Coincidence And Completion
| Principle | Authority |
|---|---|
| Mens rea at time of representation | Common law |
| Offence complete on representation | Fraud Act 2006 |
- No reliance required
- No victim action required
Actus Reus + Mens Rea Summary Table
| Element | Requirement | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Representation | Express or implied | s2(3) |
| Falsity | Untrue/misleading | s2(2) |
| Dishonesty | Objective test | Ivey |
| Knowledge/belief | Of falsity | s2(2)(b) |
| Intent | Gain or loss | s2(1); s5 |
Examiner Scenario Table
| Scenario | Liability Under s2? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Lies on loan application | Yes | False representation + intent |
| Uses card without authority | Yes | Implied false representation |
| Honest mistake | No | No dishonesty |
| Promise made with no intent to perform | Yes | False state of mind |
| Gain intended but none achieved | Yes | Intention sufficient |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Examiner Hotspots
| Issue | Key Authority |
|---|---|
| Implied representations | Lambie |
| Misleading conduct | Jones |
| Automated systems | s2(5); Button |
| Dishonesty test | Ivey |
| Intention only | Seager |
Common Examiner Errors
| Error | Correction |
|---|---|
| Requiring victim reliance | Not required |
| Requiring actual loss | Not required |
| Ignoring implied representations | Included |
| Using Ghosh test | Use Ivey |
High-Yield Examiner Lines
- “Fraud by false representation is complete upon making the representation.”
- “Representations may be express or implied.”
- “Dishonesty is assessed objectively under Ivey.”
- “The defendant must know or believe the representation is false.”
- “Only an intention to gain or cause loss is required.”
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions And 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course