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, members of the jury, is defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary as: ‘To deceive or trick a person into or out of a thing’. The common law offence of cheating the Public Revenue does not necessarily require a false representation either by words or conduct. Cheating can include any form of fraudulent conduct which results in diverting money from the Revenue and in depriving the Revenue of the money to which it is entitled. It has, of course, to be fraudulent conduct. That is to say, deliberate conduct by the defendant to prejudice, or take the risk of prejudicing, the Revenue’s right to the tax in question knowing that it has no right to do so.’
Citations:
Unreported, 02 March 1993
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Hunt 1994
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: . .
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: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.234404
