• Find a Lawyer
  • Legal Topics
  • Contract Law

Fraudulent Misrepresentation Cases

(This may not be the same place you live)

  Definition: What is Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

Fraudulent misrepresentation may be defined as any type of lie or false statement that is used to trick a person into an agreement. The misrepresentation can occur through many ways, including written words, spoken words, gestures or body motions (such as a nod), or through silence or inaction.

Fraudulent misrepresentation is frequently raised in connection with contract law . Whenever parties enter into a legal agreement or contract with one another, all parties must agree to the contract terms. However, if there is any instance of fraudulent misrepresentation, it can affect the contract in many ways, such as making it invalid.

An example of this is where one party purposefully makes a statement that is false to the other party, for the purpose of getting them to sign a contract. For instance, if an auto dealers lies about the accident history of a used vehicle, and you sign a contract because you thought the car was never in an accident (but it was), then it might be considered fraudulent misrepresentation. 

It’s important to keep in mind that almost every legal issue, including issues with fraudulent misrepresentation, depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. No two cases are alike, so no matter how identical a previous case is to your situation, keep in mind that the outcome could be very different. 

Are There Different Types of Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

What are the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, what are the remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation, what are the defenses for fraudulent misrepresentation, should i hire a lawyer for a problem with fraudulent misrepresentation.

There are several different types of fraudulent misrepresentation. These can depend on several factors, including the circumstances surrounding the agreement, as well as state laws. For instance, the history of dealings between the parties can often influence a court’s decision as to whether fraudulent misrepresentation has occurred. 

As mentioned, fraudulent misrepresentation can be accomplished through many forms of communication, such as writing, speech, body movements, or even silence. Some common types of fraudulent misrepresentation may include:

  • Making a statement to the other party that is clearly false;
  • Making a statement that is partially true (a “half lie”); this means that some parts of the statement may be true while other aspects of it may be false;
  • Omitting details in a way that creates false beliefs in the other person’s understanding; or
  • Being completely silent on a subject or failing to disclose important information (especially where they are legally required to provide the information).

Bear in mind that a party sometimes doesn’t need to know that a statement is false in order to be found liable for a contract violation . For instance, if they represent information that they should have known to be false due to their training or background, then it might be factored into a court’s decision in a lawsuit. 

In order to find a person liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, courts must prove various elements. These may vary by state or jurisdiction; however, elements of proof for fraudulent misrepresentation generally include:

  • A representation was in fact made;
  • That particular representation was false;
  • The defendant had knowledge that the representation was false; 
  • The statement was made with the intention that the other party rely on it and enter into a contract or agreement; 
  • The plaintiff did in fact rely on the misrepresentation and would not have otherwise entered into the contract or agreement without it; and
  • The plaintiff suffered measurable harm as a result of the fraudulent information or statement. 

Using the example above, if a car dealer makes a representation that they knew was false, in order to get the other party to buy a car, and the other party relied on that misrepresentation, then it could form the basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. The court would also need to show that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and caused them some sort of harm (for instance, paying too much for the car).

Some jurisdictions may have differences in the details of these elements. For instance, as mentioned, it is not necessary in some jurisdictions that the defendant knew that the statement was false. Some courts may find liability if the defendant should have known of its falsehood, or made the statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth; 

Fraudulent misrepresentation is just one of many types of misrepresentation violations. Others include negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation . These distinctions can be complex, and may require the assistance of a lawyer when dealing with them. 

In order to be found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must suffer measurable harm as a result of the fraudulent statement. This is important, because courts will formulate their remedies based on the plaintiff’s harm or loss. 

Thus, in most fraudulent misrepresentation cases, the remedy will be some form of monetary damages . These will be calculated based on the amount of harm or loss experienced by the plaintiff.

It is important to note that various parties (and combinations of parties) can be held liable and required to pay damages to the plaintiff. For instance, if a person was instructed by an employer to make a fraudulent statement, then their employer might be held liable under vicarious liability legal principles. 

If several persons made fraudulent statements to the plaintiff, or if they assisted in creating the false misrepresentation, then it is possible that they can also be named in the legal claim and sued for remedies and damages. 

In many instances, there may be defenses available to a person who is being charged with fraudulent misrepresentation. These will depend on many factors, including state laws and the exact nature of the misrepresentation. Some common types of defenses for this legal issue may include:

  • For instance, if there is no evidence to show that the defendant actually made a fraudulent misrepresentation, it may serve as a defense. Another example is if the plaintiff didn’t actually suffer any damages.
  • Laches : If the plaintiff waited too long to file their misrepresentation claim, it may serve as a defense under a laches theory of law. Most fraudulent misrepresentation claims are associated with a statute of limitations (i.e. a filing deadline). Thus it’s important to bring a lawsuit as soon as you suspect you have a claim.
  • Coercion/Duress: It may serve as a defense if the defendant was forced to make the fraudulent statement under threat of harm or under conditions of duress (for instance, being threatened that they will be fired if they don’t make the fraudulent statement). This is a somewhat more rare defense as conditions such as these are not all that common. 

Various other defenses may apply. These will all depend on state laws and the attorney’s ability to research local laws and craft an appropriate legal strategy. 

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a serious issue that can have many legal consequences. If you have been the victim of fraudulent misrepresentation, or are involved in any way with such a dispute, you may need to hire a local contract attorney . An attorney in your area can provide you with legal research and representation needed to succeed on your claim.

Need a Contract Lawyer in your Area?

  • Connecticut
  • Massachusetts
  • Mississippi
  • New Hampshire
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • West Virginia

Photo of page author Jose Rivera

Jose Rivera

Managing Editor

Original Author

Jose (Jay) is a Senior Staff writer and team Editor for LegalMatch. He has been with LegalMatch since March of 2010. He contributes to the law library section of the company website by writing on a wide range of legal topics. His articles aim to provide understandable, easy-to-read explanations for legal questions frequently raised by those with legal inquiries. Jose also contributes to LegalMatch's Law Blog , covering current events and developments in the legal field. He authored an e-book for LegalMatch entitled "Everything You Should Know About Hiring a Lawyer" . Jose holds a J.D. from U.C. Davis School of Law and a B.A. in Sociology from U.C. Berkeley. He also has experience in general digital marketing, SEO, and content management. While not working, Jose enjoys listening to music and studying jazz guitar. Read More

Related Articles

  • Charitable Gifts as Contracts
  • Invitation to Treat Lawyers
  • Enforcing Confidentiality Agreements
  • Acceptance of an Offer in a Contract
  • Revoking Contracts: Mutual Mistake Lawyers
  • Minors and Contract Lawyers
  • Enforceability of an Arbitration Clause in a Contract
  • Features of a Land Contract
  • Federal Government Contract Laws
  • Health Spa Contract Lawyers
  • Refusal By Buyer Or Seller To Close on a Building Contract
  • Commodity Futures Contracts
  • Advertisement in Contract Law
  • Contract Fraud Lawyers
  • Length of Contract Offer
  • Contract Good Faith and Fair Dealing
  • Consequences of Hiring Unlicensed Contractors
  • Silence As Acceptance in Contracts
  • Novation Laws
  • Interpretation of Contract - Whose Meaning Prevails
  • How to Write a Letter of Intent
  • Shrink Wrap Agreement Lawyers
  • Contractor's Bond Lawyers
  • Parol Evidence Rule
  • Interference with Existing Contractual Relations
  • Implied Warranty Real Estate Contract Lawyers
  • Retail Installment Contract Law
  • Protecting Trade Secrets in Employment Contracts
  • Outsider Contracts and Trade Secrets
  • Employees versus Independent Contractors

Discover the Trustworthy LegalMatch Advantage

  • No fee to present your case
  • Choose from lawyers in your area
  • A 100% confidential service

How does LegalMatch work?

Law Library Disclaimer

star-badge.png

16 people have successfully posted their cases

misrepresentation

Primary tabs.

A misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement or a material omission which renders other statements misleading, with intent to deceive. Misrepresentation is one the elements of common law fraud , and other causes of action for fraud, such as securities fraud .

Misrepresentation through the act of making a false statement can take may forms. For example, in Commonwealth v. Scott , a Massachusetts Supreme Court case, a forensic drug laboratory chemist made a number of affirmative misrepresentations by signing drug certificates and testifying to the identity of substances in cases in which she had not in fact properly tested the substances in question. However, statements of pure opinion are generally not considered misrepresentations. For example, in Virginia Bankshares v. Sandberg , the Supreme Court held that statements of reasons, opinion, or belief are not per se misrepresentations, but may be if there is a context of trust or reliance between the person alleged to make the misrepresentation and the recipient and the statement is objectively false. Additionally, in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction , the Supreme Court held that statements of opinion, such as statements prefaced by “we believe,” may be misrepresentations if the speaker does not actually hold that opinion. Also, the opinion stated, if the statement of opinion contains underlying factual assertions (e.g. we believe that our product is the best [statement of opinion] because it outranked other competing products in our laboratory testing [factual assertion]), that factual assertion may be a misrepresentation if untrue.

An omission which renders statements misleading may also be a misrepresentation. For example, in Striker v. Graham Pest Control Co. , the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York held that a sellers’ agent who did not disclose a carpenter ant infestation misrepresented the buyers, since “[n]ondisclosure of a material fact is tantamount to an affirmative misrepresentation when a party is duty-bound to disclose pertinent information.” Material omissions in marketing a product may also be misrepresentations. For example, in Drew v. Sylvan Learning Center, Corp. , a New York state court found that a tutoring service’s failure to disclose that they measured “grade level” with their own standards in their brochures, as opposed to the common connotation of public school system grade levels, was a misrepresentation through omission.

[Last updated in December of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

  • LIFE EVENTS
  • wex definitions
  • More from M-W
  • To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

mis rep re sen ta tion

Legal definition of misrepresentation, dictionary entries near misrepresentation.

misrepresent

misrepresentation

Missouri Compromise

Cite this Entry

“Misrepresentation.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/misrepresentation. Accessed 25 Feb. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on misrepresentation

Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for misrepresentation

Nglish: Translation of misrepresentation for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of misrepresentation for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries.  Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

8 grammar terms you used to know, but forgot, homophones, homographs, and homonyms, commonly misspelled words, a guide to em dashes, en dashes, and hyphens, absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - feb. 23, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, games & quizzes.

Play Blossom: Solve today's spelling word game by finding as many words as you can using just 7 letters. Longer words score more points.

Cambridge Dictionary

  • Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of false representation in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

Examples of false representation

{{randomImageQuizHook.quizId}}

Word of the Day

the act of driving too closely behind the vehicle in front

Infinitive or -ing verb? Avoiding common mistakes with verb patterns (1)

Infinitive or -ing verb? Avoiding common mistakes with verb patterns (1)

what is a false representation definition

Learn more with +Plus

  • Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
  • Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
  • Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
  • Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
  • English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
  • English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
  • English–Dutch Dutch–English
  • English–French French–English
  • English–German German–English
  • English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
  • English–Italian Italian–English
  • English–Japanese Japanese–English
  • English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
  • English–Polish Polish–English
  • English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
  • English–Spanish Spanish–English
  • English–Swedish Swedish–English
  • Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
  • Business    Noun
  • All translations

Add false representation to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

  • Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is a Misrepresentation?

  • How It Works

Special Considerations

  • How to Prove It

The Bottom Line

  • Financial Crime & Fraud
  • Definitions M - Z

What Is Misrepresentation? Types and How It Works

Adam Hayes, Ph.D., CFA, is a financial writer with 15+ years Wall Street experience as a derivatives trader. Besides his extensive derivative trading expertise, Adam is an expert in economics and behavioral finance. Adam received his master's in economics from The New School for Social Research and his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in sociology. He is a CFA charterholder as well as holding FINRA Series 7, 55 & 63 licenses. He currently researches and teaches economic sociology and the social studies of finance at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

what is a false representation definition

Investopedia / Hilary Allison

A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract.

If the misrepresentation is discovered, the contract can be declared void. Depending on the situation, the adversely impacted party may seek damages. In this type of contract dispute, the party that is accused of making the misrepresentation is the defendant, and the party making the claim is the plaintiff.

Key Takeaways

  • Misrepresentations are false statements of truth that affect another party's decision related to a contract.
  • Such false statements can void a contract and in some cases, allow the other party to seek damages.
  • Misrepresentation is a basis of contract breach in transactions, no matter the size, but applies only to statements of fact, not to opinions or predictions.
  • There are three types of misrepresentations—innocent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation—all of which have varying remedies.

How Misrepresentation Works

Misrepresentation applies only to statements of fact, not to opinions or predictions. Misrepresentation is a basis for contract breach in transactions, no matter the size.

A seller of a car in a private transaction could misrepresent the number of miles to a prospective buyer, which could cause the person to purchase the car. If the buyer later finds out that the car had much more wear and tear than represented, they can file a suit against the seller.

In higher stakes situations, a misrepresentation can be considered an event of default by a lender, for instance, in a credit agreement. Meanwhile, misrepresentations can be grounds for termination of a mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deal, in which case a substantial break fee could apply.

In some situations, such as where a fiduciary relationship is involved, misrepresentation can occur by omission. That is, misrepresentation may occur when a fiduciary fails to disclose material facts of which they have knowledge.

A duty also exists to correct any statements of fact that later become known to be untrue. In this case, the failure to correct a previous false statement would be a misrepresentation.

Types of Misrepresentations

There are three types of misrepresentations.

  • Innocent misrepresentation is a false statement of material fact by the defendant, who was unaware at the time of contract signing that the statement was untrue. The remedy in this situation is usually rescission or cancellation of the contract.
  • Negligent misrepresentation is a statement that the defendant did not attempt to verify was true before executing a contract. This is a violation of the concept of "reasonable care" that a party must undertake before entering an agreement. The remedy for negligent misrepresentation is contract rescission and possibly damages.
  • Fraudulent misrepresentation is a statement that the defendant made knowing it was false or that the defendant made recklessly to induce the other party to enter a contract. The injured party can seek to void the contract and to recover damages from the defendant.

How to Prove Misrepresentation

In order to recover damages due to misrepresentation, there are six legal bars for the plaintiff to overcome. The plaintiff must be able to show that:

  • A representation was made.
  • The representation was false.
  • The defendant knew at the time that the representation was false, or recklessly made the statement without knowledge of its truth.
  • The representation was made with the intention that the plaintiff would rely on it.
  • The plaintiff did rely on the false representation.
  • The plaintiff suffered harm by relying on the false representation.

All six of these requirements must be met in order for a plaintiff to win a case for misrepresentation. A defendant in one of these cases need not disprove all six of these claims.

Example of Misrepresentation

In 2022, Tesla CEO Elon Musk offered to purchase X platform (formerly Twitter) for $43 billion, an offer which the company at first resisted and then accepted. A few weeks later, and after a substantial fall in the company's share price, Musk attempted to back out of the deal, claiming that X misrepresented the number of human users on the platform.

According to his termination letter, Musk alleged that the company knowingly misrepresented the number of live users on its platform and that he had relied on those false representations when he made his takeover offer. In response, the social media company claimed that Musk's allegations were "factually inaccurate" and that the billionaire was simply trying to back out of the merger that he himself had initiated.

What Is a Material Misrepresentation?

A material misrepresentation is a promise, false statement, or omission of facts that would cause another party to act differently if the whole truth were known. An example of a material misrepresentation is incorrectly stating one's income on a mortgage application or omitting key risk factors on an application for insurance coverage.

What Is Misrepresentation in Insurance?

In insurance, a misrepresentation is a lie or concealment of facts that can void an insurance contract if the insurer discovers the misrepresentation. For example, if a homeowner installs a pool but tells their insurer that they do not have a pool, the insurer may be able to void the policy if they discover the misrepresentation.

What Is Misrepresentation in Real Estate?

In real estate, misrepresentation is a lie or reckless untruth that affects the market value of a home or property. A common example of this is misrepresenting the square footage of a property. Since sales prices are often based on square footage, a buyer can often sue for misrepresentation even after a purchase is finalized.

Misrepresentation is a legal term for any type of falsehood or omission of fact that affects the behavior of a contractor or other party. Contrary to popular belief, misrepresentation does not just mean deliberate lies—it can also include accidental omissions or reckless statements without certainty of the facts. Misrepresentation can void a contract and in some cases allow the misled party to seek damages.

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. " Misrepresentation ."

Campbell Law Review. " Fraudulent, Negligent, and Innocent Misrepresentation in the Employment Context: The Deceitful, Careless, and Thoughtless Employer ," Pages 61-62.

University of North Caroline, School of Government. " N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.10: Negligent Misrepresentation, General Civil Volume, March 2020 ."

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. " Fraudulent Misrepresentation ."

Legal Information Institute. " Fraudulent Misrepresentation ."

The Hill. " Twitter Slams Musk Countersuit: 'Factually Inaccurate, Legally Insufficient, and Commercially Irrelevant .'"

what is a false representation definition

  • Terms of Service
  • Editorial Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Privacy Choices

What is Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

This page has been peer-reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by multiple qualified attorneys and legal professionals to ensure substantive accuracy and coverage. Our publication process is robust, following a 16-step content creation and review process .

Aaron Minc Profile Image

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil tort arising out of contract law. It is a false statement of fact that causes or induces someone to enter into a contract. A defendant commits fraudulent misrepresentation when he or she lies or misrepresents an important fact about in order to cause or induce the other party to enter into a contract. The misrepresentation can be in the form of anything that is designed to deceive the other party including innuendos, half-truths, or silence when there exists a duty to speak.

What Constitutes Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

What is fraudulent misrepresentation?

  • The defendant made a false representation or lied;
  • The misrepresentation is material to the transaction;
  • The defendant made the misrepresentation with malice (the defendant made the statement with knowledge that the statement was false or the defendant made the statement with a reckless disregard as to the veracity of the statement);
  • The defendant made the misrepresentation with the intention of inducing the other party to enter into a contract;
  • The other party reasonably relied on the misrepresentation; and
  • The defendant’s lie was the proximate cause for the plaintiff’s injury.

Generally, in order for an action for misrepresentation to proceed, the statement at issue must be one of present or past fact. Although there are exceptions, statements of opinion and statements which are made about the intention of a party or occurrence of some event in the future do not constitute the tort of misrepresentation. Fraudulent misrepresentation is one of the three recognized forms of misrepresentation in contract law. The other two are negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation.

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a distinct legal claim from defamation . Fraudulent misrepresentation is a contract claim arising out of fraud that occurs in breach of contract cases, while defamation is a false assertion of fact made about someone.

business-owners-guide-fake-reviews

Damages for Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil offense that may result in damages for the plaintiff and may allow for rescission of a contract depending on the circumstances.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation Attorneys

Do you have a legal issue that involves a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation? Call the experienced internet defamation attorneys at Minc Law to evaluate your case. Call (216)373-7706 or fill out our online contact form today to find out more information.

★★★★★ “Minc Law did an outstanding job on our case, particularly Daniel and his team. They guided us through the entire process of unveiling the individual who was defaming our business online, and then all the way through to getting a satisfactory settlement. They always returned calls and offered sound advice for whatever came up during our case. If I ever need these types of services again, I will definitely go to them first.” Jason Moore, May 11, 2021

Site Search

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

Misrepresentation

In the legal word, the term “misrepresentation” refers to a statement someone makes an untrue statement in order to encourage someone else to sign a contract. For example, misrepresentation occurs when a person signs a contract, then suffers damages as the result of taking the other person’s advice.

In this case, the wronged party can then sue for misrepresentation, and the court may order compensatory or punitive damages , or both. To explore this concept, consider the following misrepresentation definition.

Definition of Misrepresentation

  • A statement, which is untrue, made by someone for the purpose of encouraging another party to enter into a contract.

What is Misrepresentation?

A misrepresentation is information that is untrue, but which convinces someone to enter into a contract. For a better understanding, consider the following example of misrepresentation:

Tom agrees to a contract with RealMan Magazine Company. The details of the contract state that, if Tom subscribes to the magazine for a year, he will receive a gift worth over $100. After signing the contract, Tom realizes that the gift is not actually free, but the company has instead incorporated the price of the gift into the contract for the magazine subscription.

Had Tom known that beforehand, he would never have subscribed. Now, he is out over $100 because he has both an expensive magazine subscription and a “free” gift that he ultimately ended up paying for anyway.

The above is an example of fraudulent misrepresentation. The company knew they were baiting Tom to pay for the gift over the life of the magazine subscription, but they told Tom the gift was “free” to get him to sign up. Once Tom signed up, however, and read the fine print, he realized the company had taken him for a fool.

Three Types of Misrepresentation

There are three types of misrepresentation in contract law :

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Negligent misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation.

It is important to understand that all three types of misrepresentation is a misconstrued “fact,” not an opinion . If someone relies on another person’s opinion and suffers damages, that is not misrepresentation. If, however, that person claimed something was true when it wasn’t, that is a misrepresentation.

Fraudulent misrepresentation is the worst of the three types. This is because the person who shared the information knew that it was untrue, but he made the claim in order to convince another person to enter into a contract. Someone who falls victim to fraudulent misrepresentation can sue the offender for damages and ask the court for rescission .

Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages are monies that a court awards to an individual who suffers damages or injury as the result of another person’s wrongful actions. This applies whether the acts are intentional or negligent. These damages are “compensatory” because they compensate for the costs incurred in replacing an item or seeking medical attention.

Courts typically award compensatory damages in cases concerning negligence or illegal conduct engaged in by the other party. In misrepresentation cases, courts can award compensatory damages to make up for the loss of money a person can suffer as the result of believing a lie.

Negligent misrepresentation occurs when a party to a contract does not care enough to verify information before passing it on to those whom he is encouraging to sign a contract. As a result, the other parties suffer loss of some type for believing his misinformation. Had he vetted the information properly, then he would have realized it was bogus before passing it on and damaging others. Victims of negligent misrepresentation can also sue for damages, and ask the court for rescission.

A party makes an innocent misrepresentation when he has no reason to believe that the information he has is untrue. He then shares that information with those who are entering into the contract, and they all suffer damages as a result. The victims here can sue for damages, but they cannot ask the court for rescission. To succeed on a claim of damages, the victims must be able to prove they suffered a loss by believing a misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation Example Involving

An example of misrepresentation, specifically fraudulent misrepresentation, exists in the matter of Nielsen v. Adams (1986). Here, Don Nielsen was looking for a house to purchase for his son in Nebraska in 1984. A house owned by Orlene Adams was one of the houses he considered.

On Nielsen’s inspection of the house, he noticed a sump pump in a closet near the basement stairs. When he asked Adams about it, she told him the sump pump was there to solve a minor issue involving moisture collecting at the bottom of the stairs.

Nielsen asked Adams if she had ever had issues with water in the basement, and she told him “absolutely not.” Nielsen bought the house shortly thereafter, and about one month after moving in, the basement flooded during a spring rain and suffered significant damage.

Nielsen sued Adams, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, and asked the court for damages. During the trial , Adams admitted hiding information from Nielsen regarding past basement floods, but she claimed that telling him anything about it would have been irrelevant, as she believed someone had fixed the problem. However, Nielsen knew better because when he removed the paneling, he discovered enough damage to prove that the basement had suffered water issues for years.

The jury ultimately ruled in Adams’ favor, finding that Nielsen was unable to prove that Adams had deliberately lied to him. She stated that she believed the problem no longer existed when she sold the house to Nielsen, and the jury believed her.

Nielsen appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and the Court admitted that the trial court should not have instructed the jury to rule in the way that it did. Ultimately, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration. In the Court’s own words, this decision said:

“Having considered the history of the matter and the various cases within this jurisdiction , we conclude that adding ‘intent to deceive’ as a separate element rather than its being included in the element of knowledge or belief is error. Our earlier holding in Peterson v. Schaberg, ( citation omitted), and our recent holding in ServiceMaster Indus. v. J.R.L. Enterprises, (citation omitted), therefore, are correct statements of the law and ones which we should continuously, consistently, and uniformly follow. In doing so we believe we will nevertheless be true to the rules of law regarding the necessary elements of the offense of a tort action for false representation or deceit.

We therefore hold that in order to maintain an action for damages for false representation, the plaintiff must allege and prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements: (1) that a representation was made; (2) that the representation was false; (3) that, when made, the representation was known to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that it was made with the intention that the plaintiff should rely upon it; (5) that the plaintiff reasonably did so rely; and (6) that he or she suffered damages as a result.

If the defendant can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had a reasonable basis to believe that the statement of fact was true, then recovery will be denied. If, on the other hand, the evidence is such that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant could not have honestly believed the statement to be true, recovery may be had. In any event, it need not be shown that the defendant also had a ‘bad’ motive in doing what he or she did. The fact that the defendant deceives, itself, establishes scienter even though the defendant may have been unaware of the deception.”

Related Legal Terms and Issues

  • Compensatory Damages – An award of money in compensation for actual economic loss, property damage , or injury, not including punitive damages.
  • Contract – An agreement between two or more parties in which they make a promise to do or provide something in return for a valuable benefit.
  • Damages – A monetary award in compensation for a financial loss, loss of or damage to personal or real property , or an injury.
  • Fraud – A false representation of fact, whether by words, conduct, or concealment, intended to deceive another.
  • Jury – A group of people sworn to render a verdict in a trial, based on evidence presented.
  • Negligent – Failure to act as, or to exercise the level of care of, another reasonably prudent person would likely to act.
  • Punitive Damages – Money awarded to the injured party above and beyond their actual damages, to punish the wrongdoer for outrageous misconduct in a civil matter.
  • Rescission – The revocation or cancellation of an agreement or contract.

The Law Dictionary

Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

3 Types of Misrepresentation and Why They Matter

Types of Misrepresentation and Why They Matter

A contract largely depends on the honesty and goodwill of those who have agreed to it. If a party to a contract makes a misrepresentation of fact without suffering any repercussions for that misrepresentation, then few people would feel comfortable binding themselves to that contract. Misrepresentation is an important concept in the contract laws of England, Wales, and certain other Commonwealth countries. There are three main types of misrepresentation : 

Below is a brief overview of each type and the remedies for them.

But first…

Before talking about the three types of misrepresentation , however, it’s important to first define what misrepresentation means in the context of contract law. A misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact that induces a party to enter a contract. Furthermore, to pursue a claim against the person who made the misrepresentation , the claimant must show that he or she relied on the untrue statement of fact when deciding to enter the contract and that the misrepresentation led to damages to the claimant. An opinion, it is important to keep in mind, even if considered false, is not the same as a fact and generally does not figure in cases surrounding misrepresentation. With that in mind, it’s time to look at the three types of misrepresentation .  

Misrepresentation and Why They Matter

Fraudulent misrepresentation  

Fraudulent misrepresentation is very serious. Fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when a party to a contract knowingly makes an untrue statement of fact which induces the other party to enter that contract. Fraudulent misrepresentation also occurs when the party either does not believe the truth of his or her statement of fact or is reckless as regards its truth. A claimant who has been the victim of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation can claim both rescission, which will set the contract aside, and damages.

Negligent misrepresentation

A party that is trying to induce another party to a contract has a duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken as regards the accuracy of any representations of fact that may lead to the latter party to enter the contract. If such reasonable care to ensure the truth of a statement is not taken, then the wronged party may be the victim of negligent misrepresentation . Negligent misrepresentation can also occur in some cases when a party makes a careless statement of fact or does not have sufficient reason for believing in that statement’s truth. As with fraudulent misrepresentation, claimants can pursue both damages and a rescission of the contract.  

Innocent misrepresentation  

In innocent misrepresentation , a misrepresentation that has induced a party into a contract has occurred, but the person making the misrepresentation had reasonable grounds for believing it was true at the time the representation was made. A claimant who has been the victim of innocent misrepresentation can still pursue damages, but he or she cannot pursue rescission. Again, to pursue damages it must be shown that the claimant suffered a loss because of the misrepresentation.

The three types of misrepresentation described above are fundamental to understanding contract law in England and many Commonwealth countries. Claims based on allegations of misrepresentation help ensure that contracts are ultimately honored and that unscrupulous or negligent behavior does not go unpunished. To learn more about misrepresentation, check out Misrepresentation vs. Fraud: What’s The Difference?  

This article contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. The Law Dictionary is not a law firm, and this page does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Most Recent Articles

Do Bankruptcies Show Up on Background Checks?

Product Liability: Do You Have a Case?

Simple 1041 Tax Form Instructions

What Is a SCRAM Bracelet?

Common Reasons Grandparents Can File for Custody of a Grandchild

Getting an Online Divorce in Missouri: A Legal Guide

What Are Crimes Against Humanity?

What Is a Court Ordered Mediation?

Leasing a Car After Bankruptcy

How to Register a Vehicle Without a Title

  • Practical Law

Misrepresentation

Practical law uk glossary 9-107-6848  (approx. 4 pages).

  • General Contract and Boilerplate
  • Enforcement and Remedies - Land and Buildings
  • Settlement and Part 36

Ashmans Solicitors

What is fraud by false representation.

solicitors studying documents

Send your enquiry.

Contact us for a free, initial no obligation consultation.

" * " indicates required fields

Your information is safe and treated in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Fraud by false representation is when someone dishonestly makes an untrue or misleading representation with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing loss to another.

Fraud solicitors London

If you have been charged with fraud by false representation, or you are currently released under investigation , please contact us at Ashmans Solicitors. Our specialist fraud solicitors can represent you throughout proceedings, securing a positive outcome on your behalf. We are available to take your call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

What is fraud by false representation

Fraud is a criminal offence in the UK, as governed by the Fraud Act 2006. The legislation introduces three main ways of committing fraud – one of which is fraud by false representation. This is dealt with under Section 2 of the Act.

Fraud by false representation is when someone:

  • Dishonestly makes a false representation, and he/she
  • Knows that the representation is (or might be) untrue or misleading, and he/she
  • Does so with the intention of making a gain for himself/herself, or to cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss

The court is not concerned as to whether a gain or loss actually occurred. If the defendant intended to bring about either scenario, the charge of fraud by false representation can be upheld.

Examples of fraud by false representation

There are various actions that might amount to fraud by false representation. Really, it is any situation in which false statements are made for your own advantage, or to cause another party loss. Examples include:

  • Exaggerating your income on a mortgage application form
  • Falsifying details to obtain a credit card
  • Selling assets that are not yours to sell, or that do not exist
  • Claiming for costs that were never incurred

What are the penalties for fraud by false representation?

Fraud is considered a serious offence in the UK. Being convicted of fraud by false representation carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine. However, the maximum sentence is only handed out in the most serious of cases. It is possible for minor charges can be dealt with on a summary basis, at the Magistrates Court.

There may also be other consequences of a conviction. Most notably, the authorities may pursue Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against anyone convicted under the Fraud Act 2006. This could lead to a  Confiscation Order , whereby you are tasked with repaying any money made by way of fraudulent activity.

What happens if I’m investigated for fraud by false representation?

You might not realise you are being investigated for fraud by false representation until you are invited for a police interview. In the meantime, you may be placed under surveillance. The police can also get a search warrant for your home and your workplace.

If you are asked to attend the police station for an interview, you should ask a fraud solicitor to accompany you. You will be asked questions about your activity. These can be difficult to answer, as the police may withhold certain information from you, in the hope that you incriminate yourself. A fraud solicitor can guide you through police interviews, ensuring you do not accidentally damage your case.

You may also be subject to a  Restraint Order . This effectively freezes your assets, pending the outcome of the investigation. This can make life very difficult, particularly as fraud investigations can continue for months, even years. A fraud solicitor can apply to the court to vary the order, alleviating the pressure on you and your family (and, if applicable, your business).

If the police decide there are sufficient grounds to lay charges, your case will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). A date will be set for a hearing at a Magistrates Court. Most cases then proceed to the Crown Court where there will either be a trial (if you plead not guilty) or a sentencing hearing (if you plead guilty).

Defending allegations of fraud by false representation

Fraud solicitors can help you defend allegations of fraud by false representation. There are times when the authorities mistakenly accuse people of fraud. These errors need to be brought to light as soon as possible, thereby quashing the prosecution’s case. Doing so can be a long and complicated process, often necessitating the help of a forensic accountant.

This is precisely what happened in the case of R –v- CV , in which our client was accused of claiming transport goods on behalf of his company. The prosecution argued that another company had in fact completed the work. We analysed our client’s company records, a painstaking exercise that resulted in us creating a comprehensive defence bundle. Thanks to this analysis, the judge ruled in our client’s favour and one of the charges against him was dropped.

As this case goes to show, defending allegations of fraud by false representation are possible. However, it takes a specialist fraud solicitor to succeed.

Speak to our fraud solicitors London

Fraud by false representation is one of the most common types of fraud. If such allegations have been made against you, you need a fraud solicitor on your side. We will work alongside some of the country’s leading barristers and forensic experts to overturn the charges. We will also address any other consequences that sometimes arise during fraud proceedings, such as Restraint Orders and Confiscation Orders.

Contact our fraud solicitors now

Accused of fraud by false representation ? For a free initial enquiry, call us now on 0333 009 6275. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Accused of Benefit Fraud ?

You can also email us on [email protected] or complete our Free Online Enquiry Form and we will contact you.

By Ashmans Solicitors

Similar Articles

what is a false representation definition

Search Warrants and the Law

what is a false representation definition

Production Orders Explained

what is a false representation definition

Can You Go to Jail for a Ponzi Scheme?

what is a false representation definition

Boris Becker Guilty of Bankruptcy Fraud

All Articles

Sign up to our newsletter

Receive updates and links to latest articles sent straight to your inbox.

Become Our Partner

In the meantime, if you have any further queries, get in touch at 03330096275 or email us on [email protected]

Download A Guide

Fraudulent or Intentional Misrepresentation

Standard Intentional Misrepresentation

(1) defendant made a false representation, (2) with knowledge or belief that the representation was false or without a sufficient basis for making the representation, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting on the representation, (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation, and (5) the plaintiff was damaged as a result of his reliance.

J.A. Jones Const. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. , 120 Nev. 277, 290–91, 89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004)

Fraud By Omission With respect to the false representation element, the suppression or omission " ‘of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation, since it constitutes an indirect representation that such fact does not exist.’ Nelson v. Heer , 123 Nev. 217, 163 P.3d 420 (Nev. 2007) (quoting Midwest Supply, Inc. v. Waters , 89 Nev. 210, 212-13, 510 P.2d 876, 878 (1973).

Example Cases

Foster v. Dingwall , — P.3d —, 2010 WL 679069, at *8 (Nev. Feb. 25, 2010) (en banc); Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety , 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005) J.A. Jones Const. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. , 120 Nev. 277, 290–91, 89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004) Chen v. Nev. State Gaming Control Bd. ,116 Nev. 282, 284, 994 P.2d 1151, 1152 (2000) Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis , 114 Nev. 1249, 1260, 969 P.2d 949, 957 (1998) Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc. , 114 Nev. 441, 956 P.2d 1382 (1998); Blanchard v. Blanchard , 108 Nev. 908, 911, 839 P.2d 1320, 1322 (1992) Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell , 108 Nev. 105, 110–11, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) Collins v. Burns , 103 Nev. 394, 397, 741 P.2d 819, 821 (1987) Epperson v. Roloff , 102 Nev. 206, 211, 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986) Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Rogers , 96 Nev. 576, 580 n.1, 613 P.2d 1025, 1027 n.1 (1980) Lubbe v. Barba , 91 Nev. 596, 540 P.2d 115 (1975) .

"The intention that is necessary to make the rule stated in this Section applicable is the intention of the promisor when the agreement was entered into. The intention of the promisor not to perform an enforceable or unenforceable agreement cannot be established solely by proof of its nonperformance, nor does his failure to perform the agreement throw upon him the burden of showing that his nonperformance was due to reasons which operated after the agreement was entered into. The intention may be shown by any other evidence that sufficiently indicates its existence, as, for example, the certainty that he would not be in funds to carry out his promise." REST 2d TORTS § 530, comment d.

A plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of fraud claim by clear and convincing evidence. Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 1260, 969 P.2d 949, 957 (1998); Bulbman, Inc. v. Nevada Bell , 108 Nev. 105, 110–11, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992); Lubbe v. Barba , 91 Nev. 596, 540 P.2d 115 (1975).

"Whether these elements are present in a given case is ordinarily a question of fact." Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211, 719 P.2d 799, 802 (1986).

"Further, ‘[w]here an essential element of a claim for relief is absent, the facts, disputed or otherwise, as to other elements are rendered immaterial and summary judgment is proper.’ Bulbman, 108 Nev. at 111, 825 P.2d at 592." Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc. , 114 Nev. 441, 447, 956 P.2d 1382, 1386 (1998).

"‘[f]raud is never presumed; it must be clearly and satisfactorily proved.’" J.A. Jones Const. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 291, 89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004) (quoting Havas v. Alger , 85 Nev. 627, 631, 461 P.2d 857, 860 (1969)).

"the essence of any misrepresentation claim is a false or misleading statement that harmed [the plaintiff]." Nanopierce Techs., Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 123 Nev. 362, 168 P.3d 73, 82 (2007).

False Representations

Estimates and opinions are not false representations. commendatory sales talk (puffing) isn’t either ..

"Nevada Bell’s representations to Bulbman about the cost of Centrex and the installation time are estimates and opinions based on past experience with the system. As such, these representations are not actionable in fraud. See Clark Sanitation v. Sun Valley Disposal, 87 Nev. 338, 487 P.2d 337 (1971). Nevada Bell’s representations as to the reliability and performance of the system constitute mere commendatory sales talk about the product (‘puffing’), also not actionable in fraud. See e.g., Coy v. Starling, 53 Or.App. 76, 630 P.2d 1323 (1981). Furthermore, in his deposition, Gerald Roth, Jr., testified that he did not believe Nevada Bell had intentionally lied to him about its Centrex system. Rather, Roth stated that Nevada Bell might have been ‘more careful’ in making certain representations, particularly with respect to how long it would take to install a Centrex system. Roth’s testimony establishes the absence of fraudulent intent on the part of Nevada Bell." Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 111, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992).

"An estimate is an opinion and an estimate of value is an opinion as to value upon which reasonable and honorable men may hold differing views. This is the basis for the frequently announced rule that a charge of fraud normally may not be based upon representations of value. Frankfurt v. Wilson , 353 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Burke v. King , 176 Okl. 625, 56 P.2d 1185 (1936)." Clark Sanitation, Inc. v. Sun Valley Disposal Co., 87 Nev. 338, 341, 487 P.2d 337, 339 (1971).

"Story, in his work on contracts, in discussing the various questions presented by the misrepresentations of the vendor, lays down the rule as follows: ‘If the seller fraudulently misrepresents facts, or states facts to exist which he knows not to exist, his fraud would vitiate the contract, provided the misstatements were in respect to a material point.’ (Section 636.) But where a statement is not made as a fact, but only as an opinion, the rule is quite different. Thus a false representation as to a mere matter of opinion * * * does not avoid the contract. * * * Ordinarily, a naked statement of opinion is not a representation on which a buyer is legally entitled to rely, unless, perhaps, in some special cases where peculiar confidence or trust is created between the parties. The ground of this rule is, probably, the impracticability of attempting to discover by means of the rules of law the real opinion of the party making the representation, and also because a mere expression of opinion does not alter facts, though it may bias the judgment. Mere expressions of opinion are not, therefore, considered so tangible a fraud as to form a ground of avoidance of a contract, even though they be falsely stated. * * * Yet, where a representation is made, going to the essence of a contract, the party making it should be careful to state it as an opinion, and not as a fact of which he has knowledge, or he may be liable thereon. The question whether a statement was intended to be given as an opinion, and was so received, is, however, one for a jury to determine, upon the peculiar circumstances of the case. But whenever a belief is asserted, as in a fact, which is material or essential, and which the person asserting knows to be false, and the statement is made with an intention to mislead, it is fraudulent and affords a ground of relief.’" Banta v. Savage, 12 Nev. 151, 0–4 (1877).

  • Misrepresentations may be implied

"a defendant may be found liable for misrepresentation even when the defendant does not make an express misrepresentation, but instead makes a representation which is misleading because it partially suppresses or conceals information. See American Trust Co. v. California W. States Life Ins. Co., 15 Cal.2d 42, 98 P.2d 497, 508 (1940). See also Northern Nev. Mobile Home v. Penrod, 96 Nev. 394, 610 P.2d 724 (1980); Holland Rlty. v. Nev. Real Est. Comm’n, 84 Nev. 91, 436 P.2d 422 (1968)." Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 212–13, 719 P.2d 799, 803 (1986).

  • False statement may be conveyed through an agent

"a party may be held liable for misrepresentation where he communicates misinformation to his agent, intending or having reason to believe that the agent would communicate the misinformation to a third party. See generally W. Prosser, supra, § 107 at 703; Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 533 (1977)." Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 212, 719 P.2d 799, 803 (1986).

  • There is a duty to disclose where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts not accessible ot the plaintiff

"Finally, with regard to the leakage problem, respondents argue that no affirmative representation was ever made that the house was free of leaks. At least implicitly, they argue that an action in deceit will not lie for nondisclosure. This has, indeed, been described as the general rule. See discussion, W. Prosser, supra, § 106, at 695-97. An exception to the rule exists, however, where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, there is a duty of disclosure. Thus, in Herzog v. Capital Co., supra, the court upheld a jury’s award of damages to the purchaser of a leaky house, holding under the circumstances of that case, that the jury correctly found that the vendor had a duty to reveal ‘the hidden and material facts’ pertaining to the leakage problem. Id. at 10. In numerous other cases, involving analogous facts, a jury’s finding of a duty of disclosure has been upheld. See, e.g., Barder v. McClung, 93 Cal.App.2d 692, 209 P.2d 808 (1949) (vendor failed to disclose fact that part of house violated city zoning ordinances); Rothstein v. Janss Inv. Corporation, 45 Cal.App.2d 64, 113 P.2d 465 (1941) (vendor failed to disclose fact that land was filled ground)." Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 213, 719 P.2d 799, 803–804 (1986).

Intent to Induce the Plaintiff to Act or Refrain from Acting

  • The intent to defraud must exist at the time the promise is made .

"The mere failure to fulfill a promise or perform in the future, however, will not give rise to a fraud claim absent evidence that the promisor had no intention to perform at the time the promise was made. Webb v. Clark, 274 Or. 387, 546 P.2d 1078 (1976)." Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell , 108 Nev. 105, 112, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992).

"Intent must be specifically alleged." Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety , 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 51 (2005); see also Tahoe Village Homeowners v. Douglas Co. , 106 Nev. 660, 663, 799 P.2d 556, 558 (1990) (upholding the dismissal of an intentional tort complaint that failed to allege intent).

'[F]raud is not established by showing parol agreements at variance with a written instrument and there is no inference of a fraudulent intent not to perform from the mere fact that a promise made is subsequently not performed. 24 Am.Jur. 107; 23 Am.Jur. 888." Tallman v. First Nat’l Bank of Nev. , 66 Nev. 248, 259, 208 P.2d 302, 307 (1949).

"It is only when independent facts constituting fraud are first proven that parol evidence is admissible. ‘Our conception of the rule which permits parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of the instrument is that it must tend to establish some independent fact or representation, some fraud in the procurement of the instrument, or some breach of confidence concerning its use, and not a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing. We find apt language in Towner v. Lucas’ Ex’r , 54 Va. (13 Grat.) 705, 716, in which to express our conviction: ‘It is reasoning in a circle, to argue that fraud is made out, when it is shown by oral testimony that the obligee contemporaneously with the execution of a bond promised not to enforce it. Such a principle would nullify the rule: for conceding that such an agreement is proved, or any other contradicting the written instrument, the party seeking to enforce the written agreement according to its terms, would always be guilty of fraud. The true question is, Was there any such agreement? And this can only be established by legitimate testimony. For reasons founded in wisdom and to prevent frauds and perjuries, the rules of the common law exclude such oral testimony of the alleged agreement; and as it cannot be proved by legal evidence, the agreement itself in legal contemplation cannot be regarded as existing in fact. Neither a court of law or of equity can act upon the hypothesis of fraud where there is no legal proof of it.’’ Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’s v. Pendergrass , 4 Cal.2d 258, 48 P.2d 659, 661." Tallman v. First Nat’l Bank of Nev. , 66 Nev. 248, 258–59, 208 P.2d 302, 307 (1949).

Justifiable Reliance

The false representation must have played a material and substantial role in the plaintiff’s decisionmaking, and made him make a decision he would not otherwise have made.

"In order to establish justifiable reliance, the plaintiff is required to show the following:’The false representation must have played a material and substantial part in leading the plaintiff to adopt his particular course; and when he was unaware of it at the time that he acted, or it is clear that he was not in any way influenced by it, and would have done the same thing without it for other reasons, his loss is not attributed to the defendant.’  Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 600, 540 P.2d 115, 118 (1975) (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts, 714 (4th ed. 1971)) (emphasis added)."  Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908, 911, 839 P.2d 1320, 1322 (1992).

If the plaintiff made independent investigations and discovered facts that he is now claiming the defendant disclosed, he cannot be said to have justifiably relied on any of the defendant’s statements.

"Generally, a plaintiff making ‘an independent investigation will be charged with knowledge of facts which reasonable diligence would have disclosed. Such a plaintiff is deemed to have relied on his own judgment and not on the defendant’s representations.’  Id. at 211, 719 P.2d at 803 (citing Freeman v. Soukup, 70 Nev. 198, 265 P.2d 207 (1953)). However, we also recognize that ‘an independent investigation will  not preclude reliance  where the falsity of the defendant’s statements is not apparent from the inspection, where the plaintiff is not competent to judge the facts without expert assistance, or where the defendant has superior knowledge about the matter in issue. ’ Id. 102 Nev. at 211-12, 719 P.2d at 803 (emphasis added) (citations omitted)."  Blanchard v. Blanchard, 108 Nev. 908, 912, 839 P.2d 1320, 1323 (1992).

Where falsity of defendant’s statements is not apparent from the inspection, the plaintiff will not be charged with this knowledge.

"We have previously held that a plaintiff who makes an independent investigation will be charged with knowledge of facts which reasonable diligence would have disclosed. Such a plaintiff is deemed to have relied on his own judgment and not on the defendant’s representations.  See Freeman v. Soukup, 70 Nev. 198, 265 P.2d 207 (1953). Nevertheless, an independent investigation will not preclude reliance where the falsity of the defendant’s statements is not apparent from the inspection, where the plaintiff is not competent to judge the facts without expert assistance, or where the defendant has superior knowledge about the matter in issue.  See Stanley v. Limberys, 74 Nev. 109, 323 P.2d 925 (1958); Bagdasarian v. Gragnon, 31 Cal.2d 744, 192 P.2d 935 (1948)."  Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 211–12, 719 P.2d 799, 803 (1986).

There is only a duty to investigate where there are red flags--where the hidden information is patent and obvious, and when the buyer and seller have equal opportunities of knowledge.

"Lack of justifiable reliance bars recovery in an action at law for damages for the tort of deceit.  Pacific Maxon, Inc. v. Wilson, 96 Nev. 867, 870, 619 P.2d 816, 818 (1980). However, this principle does not impose a duty to investigate absent any facts to alert the defrauded party his reliance is unreasonable.  Sippy v. Cristich, 4 Kan.App.2d 511, 609 P.2d 204, 208 (1980). The test is whether the recipient has information which would serve as a danger signal and a red light to any normal person of his intelligence and experience.  Id. It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that the maxim of caveat emptor only applies when the defect is patent and obvious, and when the buyer and seller have equal opportunities of knowledge.  Fishback v. Miller, 15 Nev. 428, 440 (1880). Otherwise, a contracting party has a right to rely on an express statement of existing fact, the truth of which is known to the party making the representation and unknown to the other party.  Id. The recipient of the statement is under no obligation to investigate and verify the statement.  Id. "  Collins v. Burns, 103 Nev. 394, 397, 741 P.2d 819, 821 (1987).

[ edit ] Pleading Standards

In actions involving fraud, the circumstances of the fraud are required by Nev.R.Civ.P. 9(b) to be stated with particularity. The circumstances that must be detailed include averments to the time, the place, the identity of the parties involved, and the nature of the fraud or mistake." Brown v. Kellar , 97 Nev. 582, 583-84, 636 P.2d 874, 874 (Nev. 1981).

  • Allegations of fraud upon "information or belief" must be backed up with reasons for the belief

[i]t is not sufficient to charge a fraud upon information and belief...without giving the ground upon which the belief rests or stating some fact from which the court can infer that the belief is well founded. Tallman v. First Nat. Bank of Nev. , 66 Nev. 248, 259, 208 P.2d 302, 307 (Nev. 1949).

  • Requirements for pleading fraud generally: The "Relaxed Standard"

The federal district court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not meet the strict requirement of FRCP 9(b), but it also found that "[w]here a plaintiff is claiming . . . to have been injured as the result of a fraud perpetrated on a third party, the circumstances surrounding the transaction are peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge."[22] Therefore, the court applied the relaxed standard and, pointing to the above facts, allowed the plaintiffs to conduct discovery and to amend their complaint to meet FRCP 9(b)'s pleading requirements.[23]

This exception strikes a reasonable balance between NRCP 9(b)'s stringent requirements for pleading fraud and a plaintiff's inability to allege the full factual basis concerning fraud because information and documents are solely in the defendant's possession and cannot be secured without formal, legal discovery. Therefore, we adopt this relaxed standard in situations where the facts necessary for pleading with particularity "are peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge or are readily obtainable by him."[24]

In addition to requiring that the  plaintiff state facts supporting a strong inference of fraud , we add the additional requirements that the  plaintiff must aver that this relaxed standard is appropriate and  show in his complaint that he cannot plead with more particularity because the required information is in the defendant's possession . If the district court finds that the relaxed standard is appropriate, it should allow the plaintiff time to conduct the necessary discovery.[25] Thereafter, the plaintiff can move to amend his complaint to plead allegations of fraud with particularity in compliance with NRCP 9(b).[26] Correspondingly, the defendant may renew its motion to dismiss under NRCP 9(b) if the plaintiff's amended complaint still does not meet NRCP 9(b)'s particularity requirements. Rocker v. KMPG LLP , 122 Nev. 1185, 148 P.3d 703, (2006) (overruled on other grounds Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 181 P.3d 670 (Nev.2008)).(emphasis added).

  • Particular pleading

NRCP 9(b) requires that special matters (fraud, mistake, or condition of the mind), be pleaded with particularity in order to *473 afford adequate notice to the opposing party. Ivory Ranch, Inc. v. Quinn River Ranch, Inc. , 101 Nev. 471, 73, 705 P.2d 673 (Nev. 1985).

NRCP 8(a) requires that a pleading contain only a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. In actions involving fraud, the circumstances of the fraud are required by NRCP 9(b) to be stated with particularity. The circumstances that must be detailed include averments to the time, the place, the identity of the parties involved, and the *584 nature of the fraud or mistake. 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure s 1297 at p. 403 (1969). Malice, intent, knowledge and other conditions of the mind of a person may be averred generally. NRCP 9(b); see Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 625 P.2d 568 (1981).

Brown v. Kellar, 97 Nev. 582, 584, 636 P.2d 874 (Nev. 1981).

[ edit ] Damages

Damages must have been proximately caused by the reliance and must be reasonably foreseeable

"with respect to the damage element, this court has concluded that the damages alleged must be proximately caused by reliance on the original misrepresentation or omission.  Collins , 103 Nev. at 399, 741 P.2d at 822 (determining that an award of damages for intentional misrepresentation based on losses suffered solely due to a recession was inappropriate). Proximate cause limits liability to foreseeable consequences that are reasonably connected to both the defendant’s misrepresentation or omission and the harm that the misrepresentation or omission created.  See Goodrich & Pennington v. J.R. Woolard , 120 Nev. 777, 784, 101 P.3d 792, 797 (2004);  Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum , 114 Nev. 1468, 1481, 970 P.2d 98, 107 (1998)."  Nelson v. Heer , 123 Nev. 26, 426, 163 P.3d 420 (2007).

"Chen’s skill in playing blackjack, rather than his misrepresentation of identity, was the proximate cause of his winnings. The false identification allowed Chen to receive $44,000 in chips, but it did not cause Chen to win. Thus, we hold that the Gaming Control Board’s determination that Chen committed fraud is contrary to law because the Monte Carlo did not establish all of the elements of fraud."  Chen v. Nev. State Gaming Control Bd. , 116 Nev. 282, 285, 994 P.2d 1151, 1152 (2000) .

"Appellants contend they should recover all their losses throughout the life of the business. We cannot agree. The district court found subsequent operating losses were solely due to a recession that devastated the Carson City area in the early 1980’s. The trial court’s determination of a question of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or not based on substantial evidence.  Ivory Ranch v. Quinn River Ranch , 101 Nev. 471, 472, 705 P.2d 673, 675 (1985) ;  NRCP 52(a). Since there is substantial evidence in the record indicating a severe economic recession in the period following the sale of the store, we will not disturb the district court’s finding that the economic climate caused subsequent losses." Collins v. Burns , 103 Nev. 394, 399, 741 P.2d 819, 822 (1987) .

[ edit ] Defenses

‘As a general rule, it is not sufficient to charge a fraud upon information and belief (and here there is not even an allegation of ‘information’) without giving the ground upon which the belief rests or stating some fact from which the court can infer that the belief is well founded.' Bancroft Code Pleading, Vol. 1, page 79. See also-Dowling v. Spring Valley Water Co., 174 Cal. 218, 162 P. 894. Tallman v. First Nat. Bank of Nev. , 66 Nev. 248, 259, 208 P.2d 302, 307 (Nev. 1949).

[ edit ] Misc

THIS SITE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED IN SEVERAL YEARS. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

All Content is Copyright © Clear Counsel Law Group and Jared Richards.

Clear Counsel Law group

Fraud by false representation

Published by a lexisnexis corporate crime expert.

This Practice Note covers the offence of fraud by false representation . You may also be interested in the following Practice Notes:

Fraud by failure to disclose and abuse of position

Obtaining services dishonestly under the Fraud Act 2006

Possessing or making articles for use in fraud

Conspiracy to defraud

Internal company fraud investigations

For civil fraud claims, see: Civil fraud—overview.

Fraud by false representation is criminalised under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006), when read in conjunction with FrA 2006, s 1.

The elements of the offence are:

a false representation

dishonestly

knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading

with intent to make a gain for themselves or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss

Fraud by false representation applies to a broad range of conduct. No gain or loss need actually be made, and no deception need actually result from a representation for FrA

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

  • Instant clarification on points of law
  • Smart search
  • Workflow tools
  • 41 practice areas

** Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

Get your quote today and take step closer to being able to benefit from:

  • 36 practice areas

Get a LexisNexis quote

* denotes a required field

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE

Key definition:

Fraud definition, what does fraud mean.

The offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, s 1 , may be committed by: (a) dishonestly making a false representation (to a person, or to any system or device) with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss or expose to a risk of loss; (b) dishonestly (and with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss, etc) failing to disclose information when under a legal duty to disclose it; or (c) dishonest abuse of position, with a view to gain or to cause loss, etc. It is irrelevant whether gain, loss or exposure to loss actually occurs.

Popular documents

Fraud by false representation—sentence tracker [archived].

Fraud by false representation—sentence tracker [Archived]This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained.Sentences for fraud by false representationA person convicted of fraud by false representation in the Crown Court on indictment faces a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment or a

Fraud by false representationThis Practice Note covers the offence of fraud by false representation. You may also be interested in the following Practice Notes: •Fraud by failure to disclose and abuse of position•Obtaining services dishonestly under the Fraud Act 2006•Possessing or making articles

TheftThe offence of theft and mode of trialTheft is an either way offence; it can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. Note, however, that low level shoplifting within the meaning of section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (where the value of the stolen goods does not

Conspiracy to defraudOffence of conspiracy to defraudConspiracy to defraud is a common law offence which was expressly preserved by section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (CLA 1977), and is triable only on indictment.The offence requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit

SocialTwitter

0330 161 1234

what is a false representation definition

  • International Sales(Includes Middle East)
  • Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Philippines
  • South Africa
  • Switzerland
  • United States
  • Research & Reports
  • LexTalk Forum

Popular Links

  • Supplier Payment Terms
  • Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

  • Legal Help and Support
  • Tolley Tax Help and Support
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Settings
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Data Protection Inquiry
  • Protecting Human Rights: Our Modern Slavery Agreement

U.S. flag

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Website

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Create Account

Chapter 2 - Overview of Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation

An applicant may be found inadmissible if he or she obtains a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) either through: 

Willful misrepresentation.

Although fraud and willful misrepresentation are distinct actions for inadmissibility purposes, they share common elements. All of the elements necessary for a finding of inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation are also needed for a finding of inadmissibility based on fraud. However, a fraud finding requires two additional elements. 

This is why a person who is inadmissible for fraud is always also inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. However, the opposite is not necessarily true: a person inadmissible for willful misrepresentation is not necessarily inadmissible for fraud. [1]

Additionally, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to other adverse immigration consequences. For example, if the beneficiary commits marriage fraud, it may have adverse immigration consequences for both the petitioner and the beneficiary. 

B. Willful Misrepresentation

Inadmissibility based on willful misrepresentation requires a finding that a person willfully misrepresented a material fact. [2] For a person to be inadmissible, the officer must find all of the following elements: 

The person procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws;

The person made a false representation; 

The false representation was willfully made; 

The false representation was material; and

The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an immigration or consular officer. [3]

If all of the above elements are present, then the person is inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. 

If the person succeeded in obtaining the benefit under the INA, he or she would be inadmissible for having procured the benefit by willful misrepresentation. If the attempt was not successful, [4] the person would still be inadmissible for having “sought to procure” the immigration benefit by willful misrepresentation. In each case, evidence of intent to deceive is not required. [5]

Inadmissibility based on fraud requires a finding that a person knowingly made a false representation of a material fact with the intent to deceive the other party. [6]

For a person to be inadmissible for having procured entry, a visa, other documentation, or any other benefit under the INA by fraud, the officer must find all of the following elements: ​

The person procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws;

The person made a false representation;

The false representation was material; 

The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an immigration or consular officer; [7]

The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a U.S. government official authorized to act upon the request (generally an immigration or consular officer); [8] and

The U.S. government official believed and acted upon the false representation by granting the benefit. [9]

If all of the above elements are present, then the person is inadmissible for having procured an immigration benefit by fraud. Since the elements required for fraud also include the elements for willful misrepresentation, the person is also inadmissible for willful misrepresentation.

If the person was unsuccessful in obtaining the benefit, [10] he or she may still be inadmissible for having “sought to procure” the immigration benefit by fraud. In this case, the fraud element requiring the U.S. government official to believe and act upon the false representation is not applicable; however, intent to deceive is still a required element. 

In cases of attempted fraud, it may be difficult to establish the person’s intent to deceive because the fraud has not actually succeeded. However, establishing intent to deceive may be unnecessary; if evidence supports a finding of willful misrepresentation, which does not require intent to deceive, [11] then the person is already considered inadmissible without any further determination of fraud. 

D. Comparing Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation

In practice, the distinction between fraud and willful misrepresentation is not greatly significant because either fraud or a willful misrepresentation alone is sufficient to establish inadmissibility.

The following table shows a comparison of the elements required for each ground:

As the table illustrates, a fraud finding encompasses a willful misrepresentation finding. Therefore, if all the elements are present to make a finding of fraud, then the elements for making a finding of willful misrepresentation must also necessarily be present. 

The officer finds that a person obtained an immigration benefit by fraud. The person is then inadmissible for both fraud [12] and willful misrepresentation. 

The officer finds that there was no intent to deceive, but the other elements of fraud are present. The person is not inadmissible based on fraud but is still inadmissible for willful misrepresentation. [13]

E. Overview of Admissibility Determination

A finding of willful misrepresentation or fraud requires certain determinations. If the evidence indicates that the person may be inadmissible due to fraud or willful misrepresentation, the officer should follow the steps in the table below to determine inadmissibility:

When making the inadmissibility determination, the officer should keep in mind the severe nature of the penalty for fraud or willful misrepresentation. The person will be barred from admission for the rest of his or her life unless the person qualifies for and is granted a waiver. The officer should examine all facts and circumstances when evaluating inadmissibility for fraud or willful misrepresentation.

[^ 1]  For more on the interplay between findings of fraud and willful misrepresentation, see Section D, Comparing Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [ 8 USCIS-PM J.2(D) ]. 

[^ 2]  See  INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) . For a definition of materiality, see Chapter 3, Adjudicating Inadmissibility, Section E, Materiality [ 8 USCIS-PM J.3(E) ].

[^ 3]  See  Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 1994).

[^ 4]  For example, the misrepresentation was detected and the benefit was denied.

[^ 5]  See  Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975).

[^ 6]  See  Matter of Tijam,  22 I&N Dec. 408, 424 (BIA 1998). 

[^ 7]  See  Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 1994).

[^ 8]  See  Matter of Tijam,  22 I&N Dec. 408, 424 (BIA 1998). 

[^ 9]  See  Matter of G- G- , 7 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). 

[^ 10]  For example, the fraud was detected and the benefit was denied.

[^ 11]  See  Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975).

[^ 12]  See  Matter of B- and P-,  2 I&N Dec. 638, 651 (A.G. 1947). 

[^ 13]  See  Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 290 (“We interpret the Attorney General's decision in Matter of S- and B-C-  as one which modified  Matter of G-G-  so that the intent to deceive is no longer required before the willful misrepresentation charge comes into play.”). 

[^ 14]  For guidance on the waiver of the fraud and willful misrepresentation inadmissibility ground under  INA 212(i) , see Volume 9, Waivers and Other Forms of Relief, Part F, Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation [ 9 USCIS-PM F ].

INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)  - Illegal entrants and immigration violators - misrepresentation

INA 212(i) - Admission of immigrant excludable for fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact

G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative

How to Use the USCIS Policy Manual Website (PDF, 2.99 MB)

No appendices available at this time.

This technical update replaces all instances of the term “alien” with “noncitizen” or other appropriate terms throughout the Policy Manual where possible, as used to refer to a person who meets the definition provided in INA 101(a)(3) [“any person not a citizen or national of the United States”].

1 USCIS-PM - Volume 1 - General Policies and Procedures

2 USCIS-PM - Volume 2 - Nonimmigrants

6 USCIS-PM - Volume 6 - Immigrants

7 USCIS-PM - Volume 7 - Adjustment of Status

8 USCIS-PM - Volume 8 - Admissibility

9 USCIS-PM - Volume 9 - Waivers and Other Forms of Relief

10 USCIS-PM - Volume 10 - Employment Authorization

11 USCIS-PM - Volume 11 - Travel and Identity Documents

12 USCIS-PM - Volume 12 - Citizenship and Naturalization

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is updating and incorporating relevant Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM) content into the USCIS Policy Manual. As that process is ongoing, USCIS has moved any remaining AFM content to its corresponding USCIS Policy Manual Part, in PDF format, until relevant AFM content has been properly incorporated into the USCIS Policy Manual. To the extent that a provision in the USCIS Policy Manual conflicts with remaining AFM content or Policy Memoranda, the updated information in the USCIS Policy Manual prevails. To find remaining AFM content, see the crosswalk (PDF, 317.68 KB)  between the AFM and the Policy Manual.

3 USCIS-PM - Volume 3 - Humanitarian Protection and Parole

4 USCIS-PM - Volume 4 - Refugees and Asylees

5 USCIS-PM - Volume 5 - Adoptions

This technical update replaces all instances of the term “foreign national” with “alien” throughout the Policy Manual as used to refer to a person who meets the definition provided in INA 101(a)(3) [“any person not a citizen or national of the United States”].

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is issuing guidance on the fraud and willful misrepresentation grounds of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and the corresponding waiver under INA 212(i).

8 USCIS-PM J - Part J - Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation

9 USCIS-PM F - Part F - Fraud and Willful Misrepresentation

Version History

No historical versions available.

Accessibility controls

Fraud act 2006, the, introduction, overlap with theft and other offences, use of cheques and cheque or credit cards, the borderline between criminal and civil liability, arguments over ownership of property, loss to a third party, fraud by false representation (section 2), drafting the charge, possession of articles for use in fraud (section 6), making or supplying articles for use in frauds (section 7), charging practice, liability of company officers for offences by company (section 12), false representation, untrue or misleading, gain or loss, failure to disclose information, establishing a legal duty, abuse of a position, possession or control, obtains for himself or another, evidence of spouse/partner (section 3).

The Fraud Act 2006 (the Act) came into force on 15 January 2007 and applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Act repealed the following offences:

Theft Act 1968 

  • Section15 (obtaining property by deception); 
  • Section15A (obtaining a money transfer by deception); 
  • Section 16 (obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception); 
  • Section 20(2) (procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception); 
  • Reference to "cheat" in Section 25 (going equipped).

Theft Act 1978 

  • Section 1 (obtaining services by deception); 
  • Section 2 (evasion of liability by deception).

These offences continue to apply for any offences committed before 15 January 2007.

When it is uncertain when a relevant event occurred and it may have happened before, on or after 15 January 2007 prosecutors should request that police obtain as much information as possible to assist in identifying the date on which any relevant events occurred.

In cases when the uncertainty cannot be resolved it is proper practice to put alternative counts on the indictment under the 2006 Act and the previous legislation. R v Bellman [1989] AC 836 held that mutually exclusive counts on a single indictment can be left to the jury where there is a prima facie case on both.

Charging Practice

In many cases fraud will also be theft. Prosecutors should bear in mind: 

  • Theft carries a lower minimum sentence; 
  • The actus reus requirement for fraud is far less; 
  • The credit/debit status of any bank accounts debited is irrelevant to the Fraud Act offences. All that is in issue is the Defendant's right to use the account; 
  • It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud (though they will clearly be material to sentence, compensation and confiscation). "Preddy" type difficulties will not arise (where the property obtained had not belonged to another); 
  • Fraud Act offences do not require an intent permanently to deprive; 
  • A charge should describe what actually happened and reflect the true criminality; and 
  • The indictment should be as simple as reasonably possible.

In some cases there will be other possible offences such as False Accounting (section 17 Theft Act 1968), Making off Without Payment (section 3 Theft Act 1978), Obtaining Services Dishonestly (Section 11 Fraud Act 2006), offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the Identity Cards Act 2006, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Prosecutors must decide which offence properly reflects the criminality concerned.

The focus of the charge is the false representation. In most cases this will be the same as the deception under the old Theft Act offences. Prosecutors must analyse what the representation was and importantly when it was made, as simply as possible, for example:

In the case of stolen documents the false representation may be that the defendant was lawfully in possession of the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it or that he was the person named on the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it.

If the defendant is using his own credit card knowing that he has exceeded his credit limit then the false representation will be that he had authority to use the card and that the card issuer would honour the transaction ( R v Lambie [1982] A.C. 449 HL) If the documents are forged then the false representation would be that the document was genuine and would be honoured.

If the representation was made in a letter which was discovered during the search of the suspect's property, then whether it was sent or not may be irrelevant to the fact that the representation was false, dishonest and intended to be sent.

The borderline between criminal and civil liability is likely to be an issue in alleged Fraud Act offences particularly those under Section 1. Prosecutors should bear in mind that the principle of caveat emptor applies and should consider whether civil proceedings or the regulatory regime that applies to advertising and other commercial activities might be more appropriate. Not every advertising puff should lead to a criminal conviction but it is also the case that fraudsters prey on the vulnerable.

Prosecutors should guard against the criminal law being used as a debt collection agency or to protect the commercial interests of companies and organisations. However, prosecutors should also remain alert to the fact that such organisations can become the focus of serious and organised criminal offending.

The criminal law should not be used to protect private confidences.

The criminal law is not a suitable vehicle to regulate such disputes. Before a criminal charge can proceed the ownership of any property must be absolutely clear. If that ownership is in real dispute the criminal law should not be invoked until ownership has been established in the civil courts.

However, circumstances will arise where the issues are clear and the offences are serious. If so, prosecution may be required in the public interest. Prosecutors should ensure that the state of affairs between the parties has not changed prior to any trial. This may affect both the public interest and the evidential test.

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs the compellability of spouses and civil partners in criminal proceedings. The prosecution cannot compel a spouse or civil partner to give evidence in Fraud Act offences.

Where there is a domestic relationship between the victim and an offender, there may also be a loss to a third party: for example, where a child steals and uses a parent's credit card. There may be public interest in criminal proceedings for the use of the card even where there is none for the theft.

The Offences

Section 1 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three ways of committing it set out in Sections 2, 3 and 4. 

  • Fraud by false representation (Section 2); 
  • Fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and 
  • Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4).

In each case: 

  • the defendant's conduct must be dishonest; 
  • his/her intention must be to make a gain; or cause a loss or the risk of a loss to another. 
  • No gain or loss needs actually to have been made. 
  • The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.

The defendant: 

  • made a false representation 
  • dishonestly 
  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading 
  • with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)

  • failed to disclose information to another person 
  • when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information 
  • dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

The focus will be on: 

  • the prosecution assertion that there was a legal duty to disclose information; 
  • the precise relationship that gave rise to that duty; 
  • the information that it is alleged that the defendant failed to disclose;

Whether the facts as alleged are capable of giving rise to a legal duty will be a matter for the judge; whether on the facts alleged, the relationship giving rise to that duty existed will be a matter for the jury. For example, was there a solicitor/client relationship or an agent/ principal relationship?

It will be necessary to recite all three elements in the particulars of the charge or indictment which must be very precisely drawn.

Any gain or loss that occurred should not appear in the charge or on the indictment. The matter will, however, be relevant to sentence, compensation and confiscation.

Fraud by abuse of position (Section 4)

  • occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person 
  • abused that position 
  • intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss

The abuse may consist of an omission rather than an act.

Like the other two Section 1 offences, Section 4 is entirely offender focused. It is complete once the Defendant carries out the act that is the abuse of his position. It is immaterial whether or not he is successful in his enterprise and whether or not any gain or loss is actually made.

As with all the Section 1 offences, though there need be no consequences to the offending, the existence and extent of those consequences will be very material to sentence, compensation and confiscation. It will still therefore be necessary to gather that evidence. In many instances it is the fact of the gain or loss that will prove the Defendant's dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt.

The focus will be on the nature of the relationship and of the specific abuse. If there is more than one instance or variety of abuse, additional charges will be required.

The nature of the relationship and of the abusive conduct alleged must be recited in the particulars of the charge or indictment.

  • had possession or control of;
  • an article;
  • for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

The wording draws on Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. The proof required is that the Defendant had the article for the purpose or with the intention that it be used in the course of or in connection with an offence.

A general intention that he or another will commit fraud (meaning an offence under Sections 1-4 of the Act) will suffice. In R v Ellames 60 Cr App R. 7 (CA) the Court of Appeal said:

"In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word "any" in Section 25 (1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to provide that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else."

Section 6 will apply in any case where "Going equipped to cheat" would previously have been charged.

The principal distinction between Section 25 and Section 6 is that Section 6 does not require the defendant to be away from his place of abode.

There is no defence of "reasonable excuse". Those who are, in particular, properly in possession of or involved in the development of computer software or other items for use to test the security of computer or security systems must rely on their lack of intention that the items or programmes are "for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud." Prosecutors will be alert to such circumstances and the possible abuses.

  • makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article;
  • for use in the course of or in connection with fraud;
  • knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud (Section 7 (1) (a)) or 
  • intending it to be used to commit or assist in the commission of fraud (Section 7 (1) (b).

"Knowledge" in Section 7 (1) (a) is a strict mens rea requirement. The House of Lords in Montila [2004] UKHL 50 said:

"A person may have reasonable grounds to suspect that property is one thing (A) when in fact it is something different (B). But that is not so when the question is what a person knows. A person cannot know that something is A when in fact it is B. The proposition that a person knows that something is A is based on the premise that it is true that it is A. The fact that the property is A provides the starting point. Then there is the question whether the person knows that the property is A."

In practice, the use to which the article can be put is likely to provide sufficient evidence of the defendant's state of mind. For example, articles such as: 

  • the kits that are attached to ATM machines to capture card details; 
  • forged credit cards or the equipment for making them; 
  • lists of credit card numbers; 
  • counterfeit goods presented as genuine;
  • do not have an innocent purpose that readily springs to mind.

A person who makes an article specifically for use in fraud, for example, a software programme to create a phishing website or send phishing email, may be ambivalent about whether the person to whom it is supplied actually uses it for fraud. He will fall foul of Section 7 (1) (a) but will not have the necessary intention for Section 7 (1) (b).

The manufacturer of articles that are capable of being used in or in connection with fraud but have other innocent uses will not fall foul of this section unless he intends that it should be used in a dishonest way (Section 7 (1) (b)). The makers of credit card readers are one example. The readers have an innocent purpose they are commonly used by traders who "store up" the details of all the transactions carried out during a day and submit them all together at the end of the day. The card reader merely verifies the validity of the card at the point when it is read and stores all the necessary information about the transaction. The other, dishonest, use is by point of sale staff who use the readers to "skim" credit card details either for use or sale. The dishonest manufacturer who intended a dishonest use would be guilty of Section 7 (1) (b) offence.

Participation by sole trader in fraudulent business (Section 9)

Section 9 makes it an offence for a person knowingly to be a party to the carrying on of a fraudulent business where the business is not carried on by a company. The offence parallels the offence of fraudulent trading in section 458 of the Companies Act 1985.

Non-corporate traders covered by the new offence include sole traders, partnerships, trusts and companies registered overseas.

A defendant may commit an offence under Section 9 (2) (b) in the following ways: 

  • knowingly being party to the carrying on of a company's business;
  • with intent to defraud creditors of any person; or 
  • for any other fraudulent purpose.

The phrase "to defraud creditors of any person" covers the situation where creditors are creditors of the business, but the business is not a legal person. The creditors could be creditors of individuals or of other related companies.

The term "fraudulent purpose" connotes an intention to go "beyond the bounds of what ordinary decent people engaged in business would regard as honest" R v Grantham [1984] 1Q.B. 675; 79 Cr App.R.86.CA; or "involving, according to the current notions of fair trading among commercial men, real moral blame" Re Patrick & Lyon Lt d [1933] Ch. 786, Ch D, per Maugham J. at p.790

Section 9 (3) (c) refers to section 718 (1) of the Companies Act 1985 which exempts certain types of bodies from fraudulent trading. That exemption also applies to section 9. The only exemption likely to concern prosecutors is that in section 718 (2) (b)

"Any body not formed for the purpose of carrying on a business which has for its object the acquisition of gain by the body or its individual members" i.e. a non profit making body cannot be guilty of fraudulent trading, though for example, the individual trustees of a charity can be guilty of offences.

Prosecutors should consider charges under this section where: 

  • an individual conducts a "long firm fraud"; 
  • a business has continued to trade and run up debts knowing that there was no reasonable prospect of those creditors ever being paid; 
  • a business is being run for a fraudulent purpose, for example, rogue "cold calling" traders who regularly submit inflated bills to customers for shoddy work (and who often target the elderly or vulnerable).

Obtaining services dishonestly (Section 11)

The defendant:

  • obtains for himself or another;
  • dishonestly;
  • knowing the services are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of them or that they might be; and 
  • avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part.

This offence replaces obtaining services by deception in Section 1 of the Theft Act 1978 which is repealed by the Act.

The defendant must have the necessary intention at the time that the service is obtained (section 11 (2) (c)).

In many cases, the defendant will also have committed an offence under Section 2 of the Act by making a false representation that payment will be made or made in full. Prosecutors must decide which offence better reflects the criminality involved. The maximum sentence for the Section 11 offence is five years' imprisonment.

Section 11 will cover circumstances where the defendant: 

  • obtains chargeable data or software over the internet without paying; 
  • orders a meal in a restaurant knowing he has no means to pay; 
  • attaches a decoder to his TV to enable him to access chargeable satellite services without paying; 
  •  uses the services of a members' club without paying and without being a member.  

This section repeats the effect of Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968. It provides that company officers who are party to the commission of an offence by the company will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company.

The Elements of the Offences

Section 2 (2) defines the meaning of "false" and Section 2 (3) defines the meaning of "representation".

A "representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of the person making the representation or any other person (Section 2 (3)). An example of the latter might be where a defendant claims that a third party intends to carry out a certain course of action perhaps to make a will in someone's favour. It may be difficult to prove to the necessary standard that the Defendant knew the state of mind of a third party, but easier to prove that he knew what it might be.

A representation may be express or implied (Section 2 (4)). It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation may be expressed.

A representation can be made by omission, for example, by omitting to mention previous convictions or County Court Judgements on an application form.

An offence may be completed when the defendant fails to correct a false impression after a change in circumstances from the original representation (if the representation may be regarded as a continuing series of representations).

A representation can be made to a machine (Section 2 (5)), for example, where a person enters a number into a CHIP and PIN machine or a bank ATM; or gives false credit card details to the voice activated software on a telephone line; or gives false credit card details to a supermarket website to obtain groceries.

Evidence is necessary to prove that the defendant communicated the false representation to a person or to a machine. It is not relevant whether the false representation is believed or has any affect on any other person.

In some cases it will not be necessary to call evidence from a victim, but prosecutors should bear in mind that a victim who is not named on an indictment or in a TIC cannot be compensated.

A representation is defined as "false" if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue.

In Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017], Lord Hughes of Ombersley suggested that the Ghosh test was wrong. At paragraph 74 he said ‘the Ghosh test does not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given’.

He went on to provide an alternative two-stage test:

  • what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and
  • was his [the defendants] conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

In R. v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim Mr Barton and Mrs Booth appealed their convictions on the grounds that the trial Judge had erred in directing the Jury on the issue of dishonesty by applying Lord Hughes’ new two stage test, which was obiter dictum, and not the two stage test set out in R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2.

In dismissing Barton and Booth’s appeal against conviction, the Lord Chief Justice said: ‘We are satisfied that the decision in Ivey is correct, is to be preferred, and that there is no obstacle in the doctrine of stare decisis to its being applied as the law of England and Wales’.

In Barton and Booth , the Court of Appeal has changed the test for dishonesty from a subjective test to an objective test. The fact-finding tribunal must now decide the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts and then determine whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no longer a requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

"Gain "and "loss" are defined in section 5 of the Act. The definition is essentially the same as in Section 34 of the Theft Act.

Gain and loss extends only to gain and loss in money or other property (Section 5 (2) (a)), whether temporary or permanent (Section 5 (2) (b)) and means any property whether real or personal including things in action and other intangible property (Section 5 (2) (b)).

"Gain" includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have (Section 5 (3)).

"Loss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get as well as a loss by parting with what one has (Section 5 (4)).

The Defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation.

The breadth of conduct to which Section 2 applies is much wider than the old Theft Act deception offences because no gain or loss need actually be made. It is the Defendant's ultimate intention that matters. If the Defendant gets information by making a false representation, intending ultimately to make a gain or cause a loss within the meaning of Section 5 by doing so, he will have committed a Section 2 offence.

There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to "material" or "relevant "information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete. Under such circumstances the Defendant would have to rely on the absence of dishonesty. Such cases can be prosecuted under the Act if the public interest requires it, though such cases will be unusual.

It is no defence that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defence in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defence must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course, lies with the prosecutor.

Prosecutors must be acutely aware of the public interest in such cases, bear in mind the relative standing of the parties and pay particular regard to any explanation for the failure given by the Defendant.

A legal duty to disclose information can arise as a result of a contract between two parties or because of the existence of a particular type of professional relationship between them; for example, a solicitor/client relationship. In its report on fraud ( No. 276 Cm 5560 2002 ) the Law Commission made the following comments about the circumstances in which a legal duty might arise:

7.28 ... Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non- disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it.

There are three considerations:

  • Whether the facts as alleged are capable of creating a legal duty is a matter for the judge;
  • Whether the relationship that would create any legal duty exists on the facts alleged is a matter for the jury directed by the judge;
  • Where the matter is not in issue the judge may direct the jury that a legal duty exists.

The Explanatory Notes to the Fraud Act provide the following examples of a breach of a legal duty: 

  • The failure of a solicitor to share vital information with a client in order to perpetrate a fraud upon that client;
  • A person who intentionally failed to disclose information relating to his heart condition when making an application for life insurance.

The "position" required by section 4 is one that may be described as a position of trust.  It could include company directors, trustees, business partners or employees. In many cases it will be one where there is a legal 'fiduciary' duty; but such a duty is not essential. It is, however, a position that carries something more than a moral obligation.

The Law Commission explained the meaning of "position" as follows:

"The necessary relationship will be present between trustee and beneficiary, director and company, professional person and client, agent and principal, employee and employer, or between partners. It may arise otherwise, for example within a family, or in the context of voluntary work, or in any context where the parties are not at arm's length. In nearly all cases where it arises, it will be recognised by the civil law as importing fiduciary duties, and any relationship that is so recognised will suffice. We see no reason, however, why the existence of such duties should be essential. This does not, of course, mean that it would be entirely a matter for the fact finders whether the necessary relationship exists. The question whether the particular facts alleged can properly be described as giving rise to that relationship will be an issue capable of being ruled on by the judge and, if the case goes to the jury, of being the subject of directions."

Examples of the type of conduct that would give rise to a charge under section 4 are: 

  • an employee of a software company who uses his position to clone software products with the intention of selling the products on his own behalf; 
  • where a person is employed to care for an elderly or disabled person and has access to that person's bank account but abuses that position by removing funds for his own personal use. (This may also be theft);
  • an attorney who removes money from the grantor's accounts for his own use. The Power of Attorney allows him to do so but when excessive this will be capable of being an offence under Section 4; 
  • an employee who fails to take up the chance of a crucial contract in order that an associate or rival company can take it up instead;
  • a trustee who dishonestly acts outside the terms of a trust deed in order to produce a gain or loss for himself or others; 
  • a director of a company who dishonestly makes use of knowledge gained as a director to make a personal gain;
  • an employee who abuses his position in order to grant contracts or discounts to friends, relatives and associates; a waiter who sells his own bottles of wine passing them off as belonging to the restaurant R v Doukas [1978] 1 All E.R. 1071.;
  • a tradesman who helps an elderly person with odd jobs, gains influence over that person and removes money from their account (This may also be theft but see the guidance on the Public Interest criteria above for the Fraud offences);
  • the person entrusted to purchase lottery tickets on behalf of others again, this will probably be theft as well.

The terms "financial interests" and "abuse" are not defined in the Act and so may be taken to have their ordinary meaning.

Note that the section refers to a person who "occupies a position in which he is expected ... ". The person who no longer occupies that position when, for example, he uses information properly gained while "in post" dishonestly, does not commit an offence. He may do so if there is a contractual obligation that extends beyond his departure from the post. He will, however, be guilty of an offence if he took steps to plan his actions while "in post" and put the plan into action after leaving the post or after the relationship ceased.

For example, an employee who transferred sensitive commercial information from his office laptop to his home computer while in employment and used it after that employment had ended will commit the offence. At that stage he will no longer be "occupying a position " but he was when the offence was committed (transferring the information intending to make a gain or cause a loss) and so can be prosecuted.

In these circumstances prosecutors must be particularly mindful that the criminal law is not invoked by complainants for purely commercial purposes.

The Act does not offer a definition of "possession or control".

It is probable that the case law on possession of drugs will apply. The phrase "possession or control" suggests something looser than the absolute "possession" in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under that Act "possession" means having physical custody of criminal property.

Section 37(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides that for the purposes of that Act "the things which a person has in his possession shall be taken to include anything subject to his control which is in the custody of another". DPP V Brookes [1974] A.C 862 PC. In the case of R v McNamara 87 Cr App R 246 the Court of Appeal acknowledged the difficulties in expressing the concept of “possession” and summarised the position by saying that possession is established against the defendant once the prosecution have proved that he had in his control a package that in fact contained the drug alleged, that he knew that he had the package in his control, and that he knew it contained something; and secondly that once possession is thus established an evidential burden is cast upon the defendant.

Although the Fraud Act does not contain a similar section, the reference to "control" suggests that items in the possession of others but over which the Defendant retains control would qualify as being in the defendant's "possession". It is sufficient therefore that the person from whom the property is appropriated was at the time in fact in possession or control: R v Turner (No.2), 55 Cr. App R 336 CA. It is not necessary to prove that the person’s possession or control was lawful: R v Kelly and Lindsay [1999] Q.B 621, CA.

The law on possession of indecent images will also apply particularly to the possession of software and material stored on computers for use in fraud (covered by virtue of section 8). Prosecutors should bear in mind the judgement of the Court of Appeal in R v Porter [2006] EWCA Crim 560, in which it was held that an image (and, by analogy, a document) will only be considered to be in the possession of the defendant (in the sense of custody or control) if it is accessible to him. In the case of a deleted image, where the Defendant could not retrieve or gain access to it he would no longer have custody or control of it. It follows that it would not be appropriate to say that a person who could not retrieve and image (or document) from a hard disk drive would be in possession of the image by reason of his possession of the hard disk drive itself.

In cases where the prosecution will rely on evidence of material stored on computers, it will be necessary to obtain expert evidence as in cases involving indecent images.

"Article" has its ordinary meaning subject to Section 8. It is extremely wide covering anything from pen and paper to blank credit cards, credit card numbers and sophisticated computer programmes.

Section 8 provides further definition of the term "article". For the purposes of Sections 6 and 7 and the provisions listed in Section 8 (2) which include Section 1 (7) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("prohibited articles" for the purposes of stop and search powers) "article" includes any program or data held in electronic form.

If a successful Section 2 fraudster has succeeded in obtaining information held either as hard copy or in data form from those he has duped, he will also be guilty of a Section 6 offence in relation to that information.

The Act does not define “services”, but it is likely that that it will encapsulate at least all those benefits which had been said to fall within the definition which was provided under Section 1of the Theft Act 1978.The service must be provided on the basis that it will be paid for. The same restrictions will therefore apply to the obtaining of banking services under this section as before they must be chargeable to fall within the ambit of Section 11 ( R v Sofroniou [2003] EWCA Crim 3681). If the banking services obtained are free, Section 11 cannot be charged. The same restriction does not apply to Section 2 fraud by making a false representation.

Section 11 differs from the offences under section 1 in that it requires the actual obtaining of a service (by a dishonest act).

It is not possible to commit the offence by omission alone. This avoids the situation where unscrupulous service providers might feel able to pressure anyone who had been given services they had not requested. 

Section 13 is similar to Section 31(1) of the Theft Act 1968. A person is protected from incriminating himself or his spouse or civil partner for the purposes of offences under the Act and related offences, while nonetheless being obliged to co-operate with certain civil proceedings (for example, civil confiscation) relating to property. This section goes beyond Section 31 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 in removing privilege in relation to "related offences" as well as the offence charged. "Related offences" are defined in Section 13 (4) as conspiracy to defraud and any other offence involving any form of fraud or fraudulent conduct or purpose. 

The maximum penalty for offences under Sections 1, 7 and 9 and is 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction and 10 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

Section 10 of the Act increases the maximum penalty for offences contrary to Section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 to 10 years' imprisonment.

The maximum penalty for an offence under Sections 6 and 11 is 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases.

Continue reading

Prosecution guidance

This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.

Further reading

Related news.

View all news

Former council employee jailed after roofing work fraud

Last of a group of lawyers convicted for defrauding the legal aid agency, criminals who laundered fraudulently-obtained life savings in £12 million shares scam sentenced, tri dyn yn euog o droseddau o dwyll a chaffael eiddo troseddol, updated: consultant who faked payments to peers and defrauded the police federation banned from being a company director, three men convicted for offences of fraud and acquiring criminal property, men jailed for laundering more than £12m of criminal cash, jailed farmer sentenced again for environmental offences, man convicted for running illegal financial service for people smugglers, related publications, economic crime strategy 2025, directors’ guidance to accompany the attorney general’s guidelines on plea discussions in cases of serious or complex fraud, cps economic crime strategy 2025 - two year progress report, related prosecution guidance, theft act offences, forgery and counterfeiting, prosecuting welfare and health fraud cases, older people: prosecuting crimes against, deferred prosecution agreements - code of practice, intellectual property crime, financial reporting orders.

Help us to improve our website; let us know what you think by taking our short survey

Go to the survey >  

what is a false representation definition

Misrepresentation

Practical law uk glossary 9-107-6848  (approx. 4 pages).

  • General Contract and Boilerplate
  • Substantive Law

‘False information and fear mongering’: Supporters, opponents tussle over literacy reform bill

A letter from the lexington public schools superintendent has stirred the debate.

Books in a fourth-grade classroom at Sanderson Academy in Ashfield.

Educator unions and school officials are pushing back against legislation that would change the state’s approach to teaching literacy that recently advanced in the Massachusetts Legislature, arguing that it would prevent teachers from making the best decisions for their students.

The bill would grant the state unprecedented authority over school districts’ reading curriculums and may require districts to replace curricular materials that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education deems “low quality” because they include discredited teaching methods. Many of those districts are in the Boston suburbs.

Advocates of the bill, meanwhile, are criticizing opponents for promoting what they say is misinformation about the legislation.

Advertisement

The lobbying from each side comes as lawmakers on the House and Senate Ways and Means committees decide whether to move the legislation on for full floor votes in each chamber before the legislative session ends July 31. National observers are watching to see whether Massachusetts will join dozens of other states in passing a law to require “evidence-based” reading instruction.

Opponents of the legislation want local districts to continue to have complete say over which curriculums schools use, even if the materials are not state-supported. More than 300 “concerned educators,” including nearly 50 superintendents, signed a Feb. 5 letter, which was addressed to state officials, opposing the bill.

Both the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents also oppose the legislation. The groups have said it would force districts to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach to reading instruction, something the bill’s supporters adamantly deny.

Supporters of the legislation point to Massachusetts’ underwhelming reading scores and say it’s time for the state to intervene. A Globe investigation found roughly half of all Massachusetts districts last school year were using a K-3 reading curriculum the state called “low quality.”

One of those districts is Lexington, whose superintendent has emerged as a vocal critic of the legislation.

Lexington uses Units of Study, a curriculum that has received poor reviews from EdReports, a North Carolina-based nonprofit that evaluates teaching materials. Units of Study was poorly rated , in part, because materials teach students to use pictures, rather than phonics rules, in tackling unfamiliar words.

“Can you imagine in Lexington, the gold standard, our children are being taught to read with non-evidence-based teaching methods?” Jessica Quattrocchi, cochair of the Lexington Special Education Parent Advisory Council, said during a Feb. 13 School Committee meeting.

Superintendent Julie Hackett, who wrote the Jan. 5 letter opposing the curriculum legislation, said during the virtual School Committee meeting that absent “irrefutable gains” credited to other curriculums, it would be “illogical” for the district to change its approach.

“We think it’s best to leave educational decisions to local educators who understand the needs of their students,” she said.

Hackett, who was named the Massachusetts Superintendent of the Year in 2018, did not return a request for comment. In her letter, she questioned the validity of the EdReports rating, which was determined by a panel of educators. According to budget documents, all Lexington K-2 classrooms will be using a revised version of Units of Study, which places a greater emphasis on phonics than its predecessor, by the end of the school year. That version hasn’t been reviewed by EdReports.

Former Lexington Public Schools parent Nicole Locher, who also spoke at the Feb. 13 meeting, took particular issue with a one-page document Hackett attached to her letter opposing the legislation. It included the sentence: “School systems are being asked to trade in their classroom libraries and adopt a one-size-fits-all reading curriculum.”

“There is no dystopian government on Beacon Hill that is going to take away local control or ban classroom libraries,” Locher told School Committee members. “Please, I beg you steer clear of this false information and fear-mongering that is frightening parents and teachers.”

State Senator Jason Lewis, cochair for the Joint Committee on Education and a proponent of the legislation, said he also took issue with other aspects of the Lexington document , which is entitled “The Four Fallacies of the Media’s Representation of Literacy/the New Reading wars.”

The document criticizes the use of “proficiency” on standardized tests in measuring students’ basic reading skills on the grounds that the metric is being used to paint the picture of a literacy crisis that doesn’t exist.

“We can certainly argue and debate over the definition, but I think that misses the point,” Lewis said. “It’s overwhelmingly clear that too many students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, don’t have the literacy skills we want them to have.”

Hackett’s letter also compared literacy reform laws passed elsewhere in the country with book ban legislation.

“These are troubling developments, and we worry about the future of education for the children in Massachusetts and beyond,” she wrote in her letter, noting there have been “nearly 300 bills that have attempted to restrict access to books and discussions of race, gender, American history, and LGBTQ+ identities in K-12 classrooms.”

None of those bills has been filed in Massachusetts.

Mandy McLaren can be reached at [email protected] . Follow her @mandy_mclaren .

IMAGES

  1. Fraud By False Representation Explained

    what is a false representation definition

  2. False Representation Meaning

    what is a false representation definition

  3. False Representation Explained

    what is a false representation definition

  4. False Representation synonyms

    what is a false representation definition

  5. False Representation

    what is a false representation definition

  6. PPT

    what is a false representation definition

VIDEO

  1. Representation theory: Introduction

  2. RT1: Representation Theory Basics

  3. Professional Values-False Representation #nmcuk #osce

  4. Rules of Inference

  5. Fraud by false representation video

  6. False Proof Dissected

COMMENTS

  1. False representation Definition & Meaning

    The meaning of FALSE REPRESENTATION is an untrue or incorrect representation regarding a material fact that is made with knowledge or belief of its inaccuracy.

  2. False Representation Law and Legal Definition

    False representation means a false or wrongful representation regarding a material fact with the knowledge or belief of its inaccuracy. False representation depends upon the peculiar circumstances and conditions involved in each case.

  3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

    Fraudulent misrepresentation may be defined as any type of lie or false statement that is used to trick a person into an agreement. The misrepresentation can occur through many ways, including written words, spoken words, gestures or body motions (such as a nod), or through silence or inaction.

  4. fraudulent misrepresentation

    Fraudulent misrepresentation is a tort claim, typically arising in the field of contract law, that occurs when a defendant makes a intentional or reckless misrepresentation of fact or opinion with the intention to coerce a party into action or inaction on the basis of that misrepresentation.

  5. Fraudulent misrepresentation: How to prove it and how to ...

    A false representation was made to you; The person who made the statement either: knew that it was false; or had no belief in its truth; or was reckless as to whether it was true or false...

  6. PDF Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation and ...

    (1) The defendant made a false representation of a past or existing material fact susceptible of knowledge. (2) The defendant did so knowing the representation was false, or without knowing whether it was true or false. (3) The defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on that representation.

  7. misrepresentation

    A misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement or a material omission which renders other statements misleading, with intent to deceive. Misrepresentation is one the elements of common law fraud, and other causes of action for fraud, such as securities fraud. Misrepresentation through the act of making a false statement can take may forms.

  8. Misrepresentation Definition & Meaning

    : an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally also : an act or instance of making such a representation Dictionary Entries Near misrepresentation misrepresent

  9. FALSE REPRESENTATION

    the crime of giving false information to someone, especially in order to make money: She admitted four charges of making a false representation to obtain government benefits. (Definition of false representation from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press) Examples of false representation false representation

  10. FALSE REPRESENTATION definition

    noun [ C or U ] LAW uk us Add to word list the crime of giving false information to someone, especially in order to make money: She admitted four charges of making a false representation to obtain government benefits. (Definition of false representation from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

  11. What Is Misrepresentation? Types and How It Works

    A misrepresentation is a false statement of a material fact made by one party which affects the other party's decision in agreeing to a contract. If the misrepresentation is discovered, the...

  12. What is Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

    A defendant commits fraudulent misrepresentation when he or she lies or misrepresents an important fact about in order to cause or induce the other party to enter into a contract.

  13. Misrepresentation

    Noun A statement, which is untrue, made by someone for the purpose of encouraging another party to enter into a contract. Origin 1640-1650 What is Misrepresentation? A misrepresentation is information that is untrue, but which convinces someone to enter into a contract.

  14. 3 Types of Misrepresentation and Why They Matter

    A misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact that induces a party to enter a contract. Furthermore, to pursue a claim against the person who made the misrepresentation, the claimant must show that he or she relied on the untrue statement of fact when deciding to enter the contract and that the misrepresentation led to damages to the claimant.

  15. PDF FRAUD AND WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION

    False representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity with intent to deceive the other party. Matter of G-G-, 7 I&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). Must succeed in this deception. See Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 424 (BIA 1998). Fraud Elements The person procured or sought to procure a benefit under immigration laws;

  16. Misrepresentation

    Misrepresentation. An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law. Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been ...

  17. What is Fraud by False Representation?

    Fraud by false representation is when someone dishonestly makes an untrue or misleading representation with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing loss to another. Fraud solicitors London

  18. Fraudulent or Intentional Misrepresentation

    Standard Intentional Misrepresentation. (1) defendant made a false representation, (2) with knowledge or belief that the representation was false or without a sufficient basis for making the representation, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting on the representation, (4) the plaintiff justifiably ...

  19. What are the Six Elements of Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

    2. The claim was false. Furthermore, the representation that was made must be shown to be false. So if, returning to the above example, a car that is advertised as getting 30 miles per gallon actually only gets 25 miles per gallon, evidence would need to be provided of the car's actual fuel efficiency. 3. The claim was known to be false

  20. Fraud by false representation

    a false representation. •. dishonestly. •. knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading. •. with intent to make a gain for themselves or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. Fraud by false representation applies to a broad range of conduct. No gain or loss need actually be made ...

  21. Chapter 2

    The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a U.S. government official authorized to act upon the request (generally an immigration or consular officer); and The U.S. government official believed and acted upon the false representation by granting the benefit.

  22. Fraud Act 2006, The

    False representation Untrue or misleading Dishonesty Gain or loss Failure to disclose information Establishing a legal duty Abuse of a position Possession or control Article Services Obtains...

  23. Misrepresentation

    Misrepresentation. An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law. Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been ...

  24. Opponents, supporters debate Massachusetts literacy reform bill

    'False information and fear mongering': Supporters, opponents tussle over literacy reform bill ... which is entitled "The Four Fallacies of the Media's Representation of Literacy/the New ...