 | This articlemay beconfusing or unclear to readers. Please helpclarify the article. There might be a discussion about this onthe talk page.(May 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under thecommon law ofEngland and Wales andNorthern Ireland.
The standard definition of a conspiracy to defraud was provided byLord Dilhorne inScott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner,[1] when he said that:
it is clearly the law that an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be entitled and an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right of his, suffices to constitute the offence of conspiracy to defraud.[2]
Conspiracy to defraud therefore contains two key elements; that the conspiracy involveddishonesty, and that if the conspiracy was undertaken, the victim's property rights would be harmed. This does not require the defendants' actions to directly result in the fraud; inR v Hollinshead,[3] theHouse of Lords held that producing devices designed to alter electricity meter readings constituted conspiracy to defraud, even though the actual fraud would be carried out by members of the public rather than the conspirators. It's not necessary for the actions to directly lead to any kind of financial loss for the victim in two situations; when the conspirators plan to deceive a person holding public office into acting counter to their duties, and when the conspirators know that their actions put the victim's property at risk, even if the risk never materializes.[4]
The following cases also provide precedence:
Although mostfrauds are crimes, in conspiracy to defraud cases it is irrelevant whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. If the victim has suffered any financial loss or other prejudice, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her and conspiracy charges are unnecessary. But, followingScott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim wasdishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For themens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (perLord Diplock in Scott).[citation needed] For the test of dishonesty, seeR v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.
Section 32(1)(a) of theTheft Act 1968 did not, by abolishing thecommon law offence ofcheating, abolish the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud.[5]
Section 5(1) of theCriminal Law Act 1977 does not affect the common law offence of conspiracy so far as it relates to conspiracy to defraud.[6]
Section 12(1) of theCriminal Justice Act 1987 provides that:
If—
- (a) a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued; and
- (b) that course of conduct will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions,
the fact that it will do so shall not preclude a charge of conspiracy to defraud being brought against any of them in respect of the agreement.[7]
Paragraphs (a) and (b) are derived from section 1(1) of theCriminal Law Act 1977 and refer to the offence that that section creates.
Before 20 July 1987, section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 did not apply in any case where the agreement in question amounted to a conspiracy to defraud at common law.[8][9]
For Incitement to conspire, see section 5(7) of theCriminal Law Act 1977.
For Indictment, see the following cases for precedent:
The followingspecimen count was formerly contained in paragraph 13 of theSecond Schedule to theIndictments Act 1915 before it was repealed.
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Conspiracy to defraud.
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE.
A.B. andC.D. on the day of and on divers days between that day and the day of , in the county of , conspired together with intent to defraud by means of an advertisement inserted by them, the saidA.B. andC.D., in theH.S. newspaper, falsely representing thatA.B. andC.D. were then carrying on a genuine business as jewellers at in the county of , and that they were then able to supply certain articles of jewellery to whomsoever would remit to them the sum of two pounds.
A person guilty of conspiracy to defraud is liable on conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.[10]
Conspiracy to defraud is a Group B offence for the purposes of Part I of theCriminal Justice Act 1993.[11]
See the following cases for precedent:
Article 13(1) of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1120 (N.I. 13)) does not affect the common law offence of conspiracy so far as it relates to conspiracy to defraud.[12]
Seearticle 11 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1846 (N.I. 16))