Q: The effect of the Fraud Act 2006 is to criminalise lying.
Critically evaluate the truth of the statement above.

Essay outline answer

The title directs us to focus on the fact that the deception offences were result crimes, but fraud is a conduct crime.

The deception offences all required a deception and an obtaining of a relevant thing (property belonging to another, a money transfer, a pecuniary advantage, etc) where the obtaining was caused by the deception (excluding deceptions on machines). The key cases are Charles (1977) and Lambie (1982) and you should try to include some criticism of the deception offences in your response.

There is now one offence of fraud with three ways of committing it. There are no 'causation' and no 'obtaining' requirements. For each, the mens rea is dishonesty per Ghosh (1982) and intention to make a gain or cause a loss. Under s 2, the fraud is by false representation; s 3, by failure to disclose when under a legal duty to do so; and s 4, by abuse of position. You might wish to point out the breadth of the offences, which elements are undefined by the Act, and where the three ways of committing fraud overlap.

Finally, you need to link the content to the title; does the Fraud Act 2006 simply criminalize lying? Well, yes to the extent that lying by representation or failure to make a representation is a crime, but the lies must also be dishonest.