The defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to cheat the Inland Revenue was challenged on grounds which included the fact that the prosecution was unable to show that the appellant had benefited from the proceeds of the fraud.
Held: Notwithstanding some expressions of opinion in the old cases, there was ample authority to show the offence of cheating the Revenue is ‘a conduct offence’. ‘A distinction is drawn between cheating the public or the King, in which the resultant loss does not have to be proved, and cheating a private individual where it must be’.
Judges:
Stuart-Smith LJ
Citations:
[1994] Crim LR 747
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Less and Depalo CACD 2-Mar-1993
The defendant appealed his conviction for cheating the public revenue.
Held: The court approved the judge’s direction to the jury as follows: ‘The next direction I have to give you is what in law is cheating the Public Revenue. To cheat, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.234403