Such an action shall be construed as theft regardless of whether the thief has taken it for gain or for personal benefit. Sections 3 to 6 of the Act define the terms “appropriates”, “property”, “belonging to another” and “with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. (Theft Law 1968, n.d.). Since criminal law deals with accusation and punishment for offenders, it is important that a correlation be established between blameworthiness and criminal liability for serious illegal activities. This argument is more applicable for theft because in this offence the other elements related to the appropriation are not properly defined, and so it is only the element of dishonesty that is assessed for punishment under law. In case the other elements related to the appropriation are judged to assess their wrong culture, it is however not possible to establish criminal liability on the defendant without some kind of judgement on the moral perspective of the defendant’s actions. …
ding is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.” (Theft Law 1968, n.d.) For example, if a person takes a cinema ticket from its owner and returned it after the completion of the movie, then it is as good as depriving the owner permanently of enjoying the interest of the ticket because when returned the ticket has no usage value left (Clarkson, 2005, p.238). Fraud Act 2006 The Fraud Act 2006 was implemented to “make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly.” (Fraud Act 2006, n.d., p.1) The Fraud Act has revised the Theft Act 1968 in many respects. Some sections of the Theft Act have been removed in Schedule 1 of the Fraud Act and they are section 15, section 15A, section 16 and section 20(2). Section 15 is about “obtaining property by deception”, section 15A is about “obtaining a money transfer by deception, section 16 is about “obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception”, and section 20(2) is about “procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception”. (Fraud Act 2006, n.d., p.7) The principle objective of the Fraud Act was to present the previous criminal law in a reformed manner so as it make it more acceptable for juries and practitioners. In this modern world of technology, fraudulent activities are rapidly becoming sophisticated and complicated by enhanced use of technology. It is increasingly becoming tough to catch the fraudsters and then prove their offence in court. Therefore the purpose of the Fraud Act is to form a “modern and flexible law of fraud” that is suitable to combat the increasing complications of fraudulent activities (Post-legislative assessment of the Fraud Act 2006, 2012, p.3). The Fraud Act associates

You Might Also Like