The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not necessary to prove a deceit by the defendant of the person who would end up being defrauded. A conspiracy to defraud is an agreement between two or more people dishonestly to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he would be entitled, or to injure a proprietary right.
Viscount Dilhorne observed with approval that: ‘In East’s Pleas of the Crown vol. II the author stated that in his view the common law offence of cheating consisted in: ‘the fraudulent obtaining of the property of another by any deceitful or illegal practice or token (short of felony) [which affects or may affect the public.] . . ‘
Viscount Dilhorne referred to the ancient common law offence of cheating, citing East’s Pleas of the Crown (1803) vol II, pp 816ff for that author’s opinion that that offence consisted in: ‘the fraudulent obtaining [of] the property of another by any deceitful and illegal practice or token (short of felony) which affects or may affect the public. It is not, however, every species of fraud or dishonesty in transactions between individuals which is the subject matter of a criminal charge at common law; . . it must be such as affects the public . . calculated to defraud numbers, to deceive the people in general.’
Judges:
Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Reid, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Kilbrandon
Citations:
[1975] AC 819, [1974] UKHL 4
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling HL 1978
The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a . .
Cited – Rex v Orbell 1703
The indictment stated that the defendants had fraudulently and per conspirationem, to cheat J.S. of his money, got him to lay a certain sum of money upon a foot race and prevailed with the party to run ‘booty’.
Held: No false representation . .
Cited – Rex v Button 1848
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to use their employers’ vats and dyes to dye articles which they were not entitled to dye, to secure profits for themselves and so to defraud their employer of profit. There was no false pretence and no . .
Cited – Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1961
The House considered what was required to establish an ‘intent to defraud’.
Held: Lord Radcliffe said: ‘Now, I think that there are one or two things that can be said with confidence about the meaning of this word ‘ defraud ‘. It requires a . .
Mentioned – In re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd ChD 1903
A company which had gone from voluntary winding up, first to winding up under supervision and then to compulsory winding up, with the official receiver as liquidator. The company’s former managing director was suspected of fraud, but the law . .
Cited – Regina v Quinn 1898
The defendants were convicted of conspiring to cheat and defraud the Great Northern Railway of Ireland of fares by abstracting return half tickets and selling them to members of the public.
Held: There was no deceit of their employers. . .
Cited – Regina v Yates 1853
The defendant had been charged with conspiracy by false pretences and subtle means and devices to extort from TE a sovereign and to cheat and defraud him thereof. There was no evidence of any false pretence.
Held: The words ‘false pretences ‘ . .
Cited – Regina v De Kromme 1892
The defendant was indicted for soliciting a servant to conspire to cheat and defraud his master by selling his master’s goods at less than their proper price. Lord Coleridge CJ said that if the servant had sold the goods at less than their proper . .
Cited – Rex v Wheatly 1761
Lord Mansfield discussed the common law offence of cheating: ‘The offence that is indictable must be such a one as affects the public. As if a man uses false weights and measures and sells by them . . in the general course of his dealing: so if a . .
Cited – Regina v Sinclair 1968
The defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud a company, its shareholders and creditors by fraudulently using its assets for purposes other than those of the company and by fraudulently concealing such use.
Held: James J . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecution v Withers HL 20-Nov-1974
The House was asked to consider whether there existed the crime of a conspiracy to commit a public mischief.
Held: There was no such crime, since it was so undefined as to be unfair to any defendant. Although at common law no clear distinction . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .
Cited – Adams v The Queen PC 4-Nov-1994
(New Zealand) The defendant had been a managing director of Equitcorp. With other directors he was concerned with the company’s investments, and established a series of other companies and banks to hide fraudulent transactions. Equitcorp became . .
Cited – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Crime
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216517