|
Dishonesty
Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, cheating, lying, or deliberately withholding information, or being deliberately deceptive or a lack in integrity, knavishness, perfidiosity, corruption or treacherousness. Dishonesty is the fundamental component of a majority of offences relating to the acquisition, conversion and disposal of property (tangible or intangible) defined in criminal law such as fraud. English law Dishonesty has had a number of definitions. For many years, there were two views of what constituted dishonesty in English law. The first contention was that the definitions of dishonesty (such as those within the Theft Act 1968) described a course of action, whereas the second contention was that the definition described a state of mind. A clear test within the criminal law emerged from ''R v Ghosh'' (1982) 75 CR App. R. 154. The Court of Appeal held that dishonesty is an element of ''mens rea'', clearly referring to a state of m ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Ghosh
''R v Ghosh'' 982EWCA Crim 2is an English criminal law case setting out a test for dishonesty">dishonest conduct which was relevant as to many offences worded as doing an act dishonestly, such as deception, as Theft Act 1968, theft,Theft Act 1968 as mainstream types of Fraud Act 2006, fraud,Fraud Act 2006 and as Social Security Administration Act 1992, benefits fraud. The test has been revised to an objective test, with rare exceptions, by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Supreme Court in ''Ivey v Genting Casinos'' [2017UKSC 67 Facts Dr Ghosh was a surgeon. He was convicted of four offences under the Theft Act 1968 sections 20(2) and 15(1). During his work as a locum surgeon he was paid one set of extra wages and attempted three times to obtain such wages by claiming variously: for work that others had carried out and for work reimburseable to him via the National Health Service. The jury found him guilty. He appealed on the basis that the trial judge had told the jury ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd T/a Crockfords
is a UK Supreme Court case that reconsidered the test used for determining dishonesty. Facts Phil Ivey, an American professional poker player, played and won a series of games of Punto Banco—a variant of baccarat—at Crockfords Casino in London, owned by Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. The casino did not pay out the £7.7m he had won, as they believed Ivey had cheated by using edge sorting. Ivey sued the casino to recover his winnings. Both Ivey and the casino agreed that the contract contained an implied term forbidding cheating. Ivey's lawyers argued that the appropriate test for whether cheating occurred was the same for contract as it was in section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, and that cheating necessitated dishonesty, which had not been shown. At trial, High Court Judge John Mitting held that cheating had occurred and the contract was thus invalid. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's ruling 2–1. Decision The Supreme Court held that Ivey had cheated, and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |