Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The offence of obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968, was specifically enacted to remove the problem caused by R v Preddy and Slade, R v Dhillon. [10] This case held that there no section 15 offence was committed when the defendant caused transfers between the victim's and his own bank account by ...
She “betrayed” them, Alabama’s attorney general said. An attorney “betrayed” her clients’ trust in a $250,000 scheme to defraud people she had been appointed to protect, Alabama ...
The leading case in English law is Derry v.Peek, [2] which was decided before the development of the law on negligent misstatement. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v.Heller & Partners Ltd it was decided that people who make statements which they ought to have known were untrue because they were negligent, can in some circumstances, to restricted groups of claimants be liable to make compensation for ...
The offence of obtaining by false pretences, contrary to section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916, was replaced by the offence of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. [29] Section 32(2) of the Larceny Act 1916 was replaced by section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968. [27]
Fraud can violate civil law (e.g., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary compensation) or criminal law (e.g., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities), or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or ...
In law, fraud is an intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. [1]
The elements of the actus reus are similar to the offence of obtaining property by deception: There must be a deception. This has the same meaning as for section 15 (according to section 16(3) of the Theft Act 1968). See Deception (criminal law) and Obtaining property by deception#By any deception).
Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law.