FRAUD

[2020] EWCA Crim 915
[2020] EWCA Crim 915
CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Mayo)
17 July 2020

A conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, committed in relation to the sale of solar panels, was upheld by the court. The judge had correctly directed the jury about inferences to be drawn from the appellant’s failure to mention facts in interview.

Crown Ct (Southwark) (William Davis J)
17 July 2020

The court granted a declaration that a deferred prosecution agreement to be entered into by a company which had acted fraudulently in its dealings with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice was in the interests of justice. The court also declared that the terms of the agreement were fair, reasonable and proportionate.

[2020] EWCA Crim 990
[2020] EWCA Crim 990
CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Nicklin J, Cutts J)
2 July 2020

The appropriate sentence following an offender’s guilty plea to life insurance fraud was four years and seven months’ imprisonment, taking into account the principle of totality, where the sentence was to be served consecutively to an earlier sentence.

[2020] EWCA Civ 408
[2020] EWCA Civ 408
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Geoffrey Vos C, Patten LJ, Males LJ)
18 March 2020

A judge had failed to apply the correct standard of proof when determining the defendants’ counterclaim of dishonest conspiracy against the claimants, and the matter was remitted to a new judge for re-determination.

Ch D (Companies Ct) (Judge Kramer)
18 February 2020

The defendants failed to show that the terms of a settlement agreement should not be enforced against them or that the proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.

[2020] EWCA Civ 108
[2020] EWCA Civ 108
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Davis LJ, Simon LJ)
5 February 2020

In refusing to discharge an unexplained wealth order made against a non-EEA national, the Court of Appeal examined the statutory test for identifying a “politically exposed person” within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.362B(4)(a) and confirmed that a broad approach was to be taken to assessing whether an entity was a “state-owned enterprise” for the purposes of Directive 2015/849 art.3(9)(g). It confirmed that neither the privilege against self-incrimination nor spousal privilege applied to the unexplained wealth order procedure.

[2020] EWCA Crim 38
[2020] EWCA Crim 38
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Spencer J, Judge Leonard QC)
21 January 2020

For the purposes of commission of the offence of possession of an article for use in fraud, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 s.6(1), the phrase “for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud” could apply to articles that were used to mislead a victim, but also to articles created later in order to disguise or mask the fraud. There was nothing in the authorities to the effect that the relevant fraud could not be one which had been committed in the past.

QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019

A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1889
[2019] EWCA Crim 1889
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Moulder J, Judge Thomas QC)
29 October 2019

In respect of alleged offences of fraud and engaging in an unfair commercial practice, a judge had correctly concluded that the enforceability of late payment and cancellation fees relating to the supply of domestic Energy Performance Certificates was a matter for him to determine. There was no legitimate interest in the charging of disproportionate late payment fees for the supply of the certificates.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1897
[2019] EWCA Crim 1897
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019

Where a confiscation order had been made against a defendant who had been convicted of offences involving the improper retention of pension contributions, it was not disproportionate to require her to pay the full amount of the benefit obtained. Although she might have received the benefit of the pension contributions in any event, it was not open to her to argue that she would or might have acquired valuable rights had she acted honestly.

Scroll to top