The defendants were accused of involvement in mortgage frauds perpetrated on a local authority. The advances were made by cheque, and the defendants were charged with obtaining the cheques by deception. The principal question for consideration was whether there was an intention on the part of the defendants to deprive the council of the property.
Held: There was such an intention. Megaw LJ: ‘So far as the cheque itself is concerned, true it is a piece of paper. But it is a piece of paper which changes its character completely once it is paid, because then it receives a rubber stamp on it stating that it has been paid and it ceases to be a thing in action, or at any rate it ceases to be, in its substance, the same thing as it was before: that is, an instrument on which payment falls to be made. It was the intention of the defendants, dishonestly and by deception, not only that the cheques should be made out and handed over, but also that they should be presented and paid, thereby depriving the council of the cheques in their substance as things in action.’
Judges:
Megaw LJ
Citations:
[1974] 1 WLR 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Wrongly decided – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
Cited – Regina v Mitchell CACD 1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248439