The defendant was accused of having obtained by deception a mortgage advance, the amount having been paid by electronic transfer.
Held: The sum of money represented by a figure in a bank account was not fully property for the purposes of the section. The reduction of the sum standing in the lending institution’s account, and the corresponding increase in the sum standing to the credit of the mortgagor’s solicitor’s account, constituted the obtaining of intangible property within section 15(1).
Citations:
Times 18-Aug-1993, Ind Summary 06-Sep-1993
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung PC 1987
Textile export quotas (a permission to export textiles) which were surplus to the exporter’s requirements, which could be bought and sold under the apprpriate Hong Kong legislation, may be ‘property’ for the purposes of the law of theft. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88317