Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on How Serious is the Problem: Fraud Act 2006. It needs to be at least 1000 words.Download file to see previous pages... What replaced this section we

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on How Serious is the Problem: Fraud Act 2006. It needs to be at least 1000 words.

What replaced this section were three new offenses: obtaining services by deception, evasion of liability by deception, and making off without payment.

One of the laws that govern the prevention of this felony is the Theft Act 1968, which was given Royal Assent on July 26, 1968. This law was the result of the efforts of the Criminal Law Revision Committee to reform the English law of theft. This English law included the Larceny Act in 1916 but this only involved a complex number of offenses that were not quite usable and applicable because of their complexity. The Theft Act 1968 was made to replace this complicated law with a single law that created a more coherent body of principles that allowed a law to evolve and meet new situations. (Answers.com, n.d.). However, by the year 1978, some amendments to the Theft Act 1968 were made. This is due to the insufficiency of the laws included in the latter.

Prior to the enactment of the Theft Act 1968, the taking and carrying away of a property was required by the English law as the cause of an offense. However, to broaden the reach of the law of theft, the Parliament (1968) required only an appropriation. The misinterpretation and application of the term "appropriate" in Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 have aroused court problems and received criticism from lawyers (House of Lords, 2000).

The reason for the difficult judgment of this case is the simplicity in the definition of 'theft' which makes the appellant's statements easily acceptable. The Theft Act needs more and clearer limitations to make the statement of verdicts easier and faster. This eventually led to more provisions made and included in the act to extend the meaning of the expressions. Certain sections such as Section 15 (1) (A person is guilty of an offense if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another) were inserted. This section has also presented conditions that state when a transaction is merely a money transfer or a fraudulent activity, and eventually led to the birth of The Fraud Act.

Still deemed to be insufficient, and with the lack of a specific criminal offense of fraud, the efforts to formulate a decree that would cover crimes which were unsolved. Before the Theft Act 1978 was amended and Fraud Act 2006 was born, the UK encountered problems regarding the costly fraud cases. Problems that the police usually encounter include having to use conspiracy to defraud or obtaining money by deception as substitutes for the more appropriate regulation which are not available in the UK law. Other setbacks include the under-resourcing of fraud squads, the failure to continue of trials involving fraud because of the lack of evidence or due to the complexity of the law, and the better and more sophisticated fraudsters.

Criminals who commit crimes such as the aforementioned cause distress and confusion among the people. As another effort on the part of the UK government, the Queen, in her speech, has included new legislation, which is said to simplify fraud trials, stiffen the national strategy in fraud and reopen the question of judge-only trials for fraudsters.&nbsp.