ABSTRACT
This chapter sets out to provide a critical commentary on the Fraud Act 2006. It starts out by examining the background to the Act, before then considering the operation of the Act a decade after it became law. In order to appreciate the concerns held by some academic commentators, this chapter then reviews many of the criticisms made against the Fraud Act 2006. An concern is the importance of dishonesty under the Fraud Act 2006 and the expectation that trial judges would use the test from Ghosh Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 when directing the jury on the issue of dishonesty, thereby appropriating all of the criticisms relating to the use of Ghosh Ghosh under the Theft Act 1968. In light of Lord Hughes’ obiter criticism of Ghosh Ghosh in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67, this chapter will review the immediate impact of Ivey by considering how it has been received by academics, and, more importantly (in light of the fact that it was technically obiter), by the lower courts.
