In order to be charged under criminal laws that govern the transfer of property title, goods and services, the perpetrator must gain access to those rights by misrepresenting an existing or past fact. The perpetrator cannot be charged with this crime if they make promises about their future, as the future cannot be predicted, and therefore, they may not have been aware that they made false promises.

 

 

Criminal law defines a presently existing fact as one being absent of any promises about the future. For example, a person that assures an individual of large returns when purchasing a business cannot be accused of false pretense because the assurance includes facts about the future. 

 

 

Humans do not have the capability to predict the future and cannot be held legally responsible for the perception of what may happen in the future. This is a very necessary part of criminal law. For example, brokers would face criminal charges every day if they could be criminally charged due to their promises about the future. In fact, many business rely on their ability  to make assumptions about the future without being held legally responsible if they are wrong.

 

 

Criminal laws do not hold people responsible for representing facts they assume to be true in the future. However, criminal law does allow prosecution of individuals that knowingly misrepresented existing fats in order to obtain property of others, goods and services.

 

 

There are many factors necessary for someone to face prosecution of theft through deception. Obviously, one of the factors necessary is deception. That deception can take shape in many ways. For example, a person may tell a homeowner that all of the houses on their street have lost value, maybe in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

 

 

The desperate homeowner sells their home way below market value in order to bail themselves out. Later, they realize that home values on their street had not changed at all. In that case, the person that bought the house willingly distorted a presently existing fact in order to get the property title transferred. Criminal laws would likely allow that person to be prosecuted, but only if it can be proven that they did not actually believe their statements to be factual.

 

 

Recently, there has been a surge of companies that offer to bail homeowners out before they reach foreclosure. Unfortunately, many of those companies simply take advantage of those homeowners by deceiving them. Frequently, those companies end up with the title of the house in which they were supposed to be helping the homeowner. 

 

 

Criminal laws now allow those individuals to be prosecuted vigorously because they knowingly deceived the homeowner in order to get the title of the property.

 

 

Criminal laws have sometimes lagged behind current events, such as the mortgage crisis. Luckily, there are criminal laws in place that cover such crimes, even though they are not specifically defined. Each criminal law that applies to theft through deception has been succinctly written to be clear and allow for many different types of crimes to be prosecuted due to the nature of the language.

Pecuniary offenses are crimes that pertain to money or financial matters in which an individual obtained property of monetary value through deception. Generally, common law defines pecuniary crimes as those that include the theft of money through some type of deception.

 

 

Although money may not be the item that is stolen, property can also result in a pecuniary offense because that property likely has some monetary value. In other words, pecuniary offenses involve crimes in which the perpetrator enjoys some financial gain which was achieved through some act of deception or through false pretenses. The victim must have actually lost the property before charges of this nature can take place. If a transfer of property does not occur, no charges can be filed.

 

 

Common law defines pecuniary crimes in several acts, including the Fraud Act of 2006. This definition and others like it were used to replace nondescript laws that previously defined theft laws. Common law now offers specific sentencing guidelines for crimes of this nature. Generally, common law dictates that an individual that is guilty of a pecuniary crime serve at least ten years in prison.

 

 

Previously, crimes of this nature were sometimes difficult to prosecute due to the language contained within laws and many criminals got away with it. More succinct laws now amply describe these kinds of crimes and their punishments. 

 

 

The United States often utilizes common law in order to help define crimes and prescribe appropriate punishment which is sometimes based on certain intervening factors present during a crime. Most property crimes that take place in this category include false or misleading statements utilized to gain property that benefits the offender financially. Generally, any property, whether tangible or intangible, has some monetary value and will fall under this category.

 

 

Crimes that include property of pecuniary significance cover most property crimes that involve theft through deception. These crimes must involve a specific intent on the part of the criminal. In addition, the victim must have actually lost the property before the offender can be charged. For an offender to simply have intent, in the absence of a completion of the crime, charges cannot be brought according to common law.

The Theft Act of 1968 was enacted by the United Kingdom in order to define crimes that were perpetrated through the use of fraudulent statements or activities. In the Act, statutes were put in place in order to define theft, as well as the means used to achieve the theft. For example, statutes that were not clearly defined were often difficult to prosecute as there were many loopholes within the statutes.

 

 

The focus of the Act was to define the manner in which a criminal could obtain personal property through false pretenses.  Personal property can contain both tangible and intangible assets. In fact, services are even covered by the statute.  False pretense is defined as a deception that takes place through a misrepresentation of known facts from the past or present.

 

 

By nature, the Act did not include promises about the future, as an individual cannot know for sure what will happen in the future, so it could not be proven that a person willfully misrepresented the facts. In addition, "false pretenses" has since been more clearly defined, and even taken out of some statutes that define theft of personal property.

 

 

Theft of personal property through false pretenses is currently considered a deception offense. In fact, more recent Acts clearly define most instances of crimes involving false pretense, specifically as deception, in order to make the law clearer and more easily prosecuted.

 

 

The United Kingdom first sought to enact the new statutes in 1968 because laws regarding theft were confusing and frequently overlapped with one another. This confusion sometimes made it difficult to prosecute cases. In addition, the laws needed to be updated in order to force citizens to comply with more recent property laws.

 

 

While there is a statute of limitations on property crimes, the newer statutes were meant to prevent further abuse and manipulation in order for individuals to gain the bundle of property rights assigned in a property title. There were many other property crimes covered by the enactment of the new statutes in 1968.

 

 

The Theft Act of 1968 was created in order to cover all theft-related offenses which involved the use of deception or false pretenses. In addition, the Act sought to cover personal property crimes in a more in-depth nature by defining personal property and of what that may consist.  It was now clear that property could consist of tangible or intangible items, such as services. False pretense crimes were now all-inclusive under deception offenses, which made the crimes much easier to prosecute.

Like the Theft Act of 1968, the Theft Act of 1978 sought to more clearly define each theft law, or each deception offense in the United Kingdom. Previously, crimes that were perpetrated using acts of deception were sometimes difficult to prosecute due to the lack of a clear definition in common law. In addition, some crimes that were not clearly explained were often left without prosecution because the laws were not clear enough to effectively prosecute the offenders. 

 

 

The new theft laws covered offenses such as obtaining services and avoiding debt by utilizing deception. Previously, such offenses were not covered by theft laws and those offenses were difficult to successfully prosecute.

 

 

The Theft Act of 1978 defined many theft laws, in fewer statutes than what was previously necessary to cover such a wide range of crimes. Included in theft laws was a wide range of deception offenses which were described in a much more efficient manner. The new laws allowed crimes of deception to be easily included in one of several categories of deception crimes. In fact, deception offenses were more clearly outlined so that the language used to describe theft laws was succinct and efficient.

 

 

The new statutes covered services which were obtained through deception as well as non-payment for services. In both cases, the perpetrator had stolen services through deception and many types of crimes could be covered by that new language. In addition, the statutes covered theft laws that referenced an individual avoiding liability of debt by utilizing deception. 

 

 

In all of the statutes, the victim must have lost a benefit that he or she conferred on the offender because of an act of fraud or deception. For example, the victim may have transferred a property title due to a fraudulent statement made by the offender. If the victim did not actually transfer the title, no crime has been committed according to these statutes.

 

 

In order to fully understand the implications of each theft law, one must only examine a specific crime. For example, a theft law may state that the deception used to steal property must be based on facts from the past or the present. If an offender were to gain property rights by deceiving the victim about the future, they could not be charged with the same offense as one based on fraudulent facts about the past or present. Since no one can predict the future, false promises do not fall under this type of theft law.

 

 

For reasons like that, each theft law has been updated by statutes that are written very succinctly. Although each theft law has since been updated, the Theft Act of 1978 was a necessary step toward achieving succinct laws on fraud-related crimes.

Larceny involves the element of asportation, which is defined as the carrying away of a piece of personal property. Common law included the term asportation in order for a crime to be classified as a larceny charge. Even the smallest movement of an individual's personal property can be considered asportation. By moving the personal property of another, the perpetrator took control of the property even if only for a moment. Taking control of property can be equated with taking temporary possession of property, which is an element of a larceny charge.

 

 

When an individual takes control of property that they have no possession rights to, they are guilty of asportation. As one of the elements of a larceny charge, asportation can sometimes be difficult to prove. In order to meet the requirement for this element in a larceny charge, it must be proven that the perpetrator simply moved the personal property of another. That movement can be minimal in order to meet the requirement of asportation.

 

 

Larceny charges require many other elements but without movement of the item, no larceny charges can occur. In addition, the movement required for larceny charges can be done by someone other than the perpetrator if it was at their behest. For example, a person guilty of larceny charges may attempt to sell the personal property of another. In that case, they may have the buyer remove the property.

 

 

The actual person that moves the property is not as vital as who instigated the move. For example, a perpetrator may attempt to sell an ATV of which they have no possession rights. When the buyer removes the ATV from its original location, even for a test drive, the perpetrator has met the asportation requirement needed for larceny charges. The buyer would not be charged unless they had reason to believe that the seller did not have legitimate possession rights to the ATV.

 

 

A larceny charge requires several elements of the crime. Asportation is a requirement because an object could not have been stolen if it remains where it was originally placed by the person that has possession rights to that property. While the perpetrator may have taken money for the item, there would be no larceny charge unless the item was moved. There would be charges, but they would likely fall under a different category of crime. Perhaps the buyer that was duped out of money for property not received would be the one pressing charges. In that case, the buyer may be able to bring larceny charges. There are crimes that incur charges similar to larceny charges, even if they do not involve asportation.

False pretenses are often utilized to commit property crimes that are perpetrated through the use of fraud. Individuals illegally gain property by misrepresenting the facts as they were known in the past, or as they are currently known in the present. False pretense can not be utilized when making claims about the future since humans cannot possibly know what will happen in the future.

 

 

It is difficult to prove that an individual has made false promises about the future since it can be difficult to prove that they did not actually believe what they said would happen. For example, an individual that says an item will lose value in  the coming months may or may not be correct. In either case, it would be difficult to prove that the individual had intent to deceive in order to gain property through that deception. 

 

 

False pretenses are often utilized by criminals that seek to gain personal property by deceiving the owner of that property on facts about the value of the property. In most jurisdictions, false pretenses can be included in a charge on any crime that relates to property or theft of objects that have monetary value.

 

 

While the original intent of false pretense laws was to prevent the transfer of property title based on fraud, the law now covers a wide range of property and items of value. In fact, false pretenses can be utilized to steal tangible or intangible property. The criminal must be aware that they are misrepresenting the facts and utilize that deception to gain possession of property that rightfully belongs to another person.

 

 

Obtaining Title to Property

 

 

The title to property grants the title holder a bundle of rights that pertain to a certain property or structure. Those rights are limitless and often specific to certain properties and structures. For example, some titles grant the owner rights to water and sewers while others do not.  Individuals that utilize false pretenses to acquire the tile to property can only be charged once they actually receive the title and the bundle of rights associated with it. 

 

 

In order to prove that they used false pretense to acquire the title, it is necessary that the previous title holder had no doubts about the statements made by the new owner.For example, an individual that transferred title even though they doubted statements made by the person wishing to obtain the title cannot press charges because they were not truly deceived. 

 

 

The person that received the title must have been able to fool the previous title owner by misrepresenting facts from the past or facts based on the present situation. They must have defrauded the previous holder of the title willfully and effectively in order to be charged with a  crime. In other words, the person must have knowingly deceived the title holder rather than presenting false facts that they believed to be true.

 

 

In addition, the previous holder of title must have only relinquished the title because of the fraud, absent of any other factors. If the deceit took place after the previous title holder had already decided to relinquish their property rights, no crime has taken place. The person that obtained property rights can also not be charged if they failed to make a disclosure. The deceit must be in the affirmative.

 

 

Knowingly or Recklessly Making a False Representation

 

 

Although the term false pretenses is no longer utilized in English law, it is still used in many of the United States criminal laws. English law now uses the term deceit, or crimes of deception, to cover crimes of similar circumstance. However, the idea is basically the same. In both cases, the accused knowingly and recklessly makes a false representation in order to gain property from another person who is entitled to ownership of that property. That means that the individual knew that the statements they made were false and said them anyway as a way of achieving their goal of obtaining the property of another.

 

 

If, however, a person makes false statements, without knowing they are false, they are not knowingly misrepresenting the facts. A person that misinforms someone because they are misinformed is not knowingly deceiving another person. In order to knowingly and recklessly deceive a person, the perpetrator must know that they are deceiving the owner of the property in order to obtain the transfer of property rights.

 

 

Of Pecuniary Significance

 

 

Pecuniary is a word used to describe something that has financial value. Individuals that gain property rights through deception or false pretense likely end up with property that has pecuniary value. In fact, the crime must contain an element of financial gain or no crime has been committed. Pecuniary significance can get rather confusing due to the real and perceived financial value of a piece of property, goods and services. 

 

 

A criminal may use false pretense to gain valuable property, such as a title to land. Yet, they may find that they are unable to sell the land and may claim that there is no pecuniary significance to that piece of property. However, the land does have pecuniary significance, even if it is smaller than what the criminal believed it was. 

 

 

In crimes that involve false pretense, the actual pecuniary significance of a piece of property is not as important as the fact that the property does have some sort of financial value, no matter how small.

 

 

Intend to, and does, Defraud the Victim

 

 

In order to be guilty of utilizing false pretenses in order to gain the property of another, the individual must intend to defraud their victim and then complete the transfer of property through that fraud. For example, a person that intends to acquire the title to a property by telling the title holder that they will lose money by holding onto the property must know that fact is not true. 

 

 

In addition, that person must actually obtain the title to property because of that deceit or misrepresentation of fact. Perhaps they told the property owner that home values in the area were on a steep decline due to new building permit laws, when in fact there were no new laws set to take effect. While the homeowner should have done research, they were defrauded and convinced to transfer title based on false pretenses.

 

 

If, however, the homeowner doubted the fact and transferred the title anyway, then no crime has been committed. In order for the crime to be committed, the criminal must have intended to defraud the victim, completed some transaction based on false pretense and convinced the victim of facts. 

 

If the victim was not convinced and transferred the title anyway, no crime has been committed because the victim was not completely deceived.

 

 

Theft Act 1968

 

 

The Theft Act of 1968 was one of many steps meant to more clearly define some theft laws in the United Kingdom. Previous to this Act, prosecutors often had a difficult time prosecuting crimes that involved an individual obtaining property through fraudulent activity. 

 

 

The Criminal Law Revision Committee in the United Kingdom sought to make laws on theft more clear and succinct. Previously, the laws were unclear, lengthy and confusing for both prosecutors and criminals.

 

 

The major premise of the new, streamlined laws was that a person was guilty if they committed theft of property that rightly belongs to another with the intention of permanently depriving the person of their property. 

 

In addition, they must have committed that theft through false pretense or by utilizing deception to get the victim to transfer ownership of said property. In other words, the criminal has no intention of returning the property to its rightful owner. 

 

 

The Theft Act of 1968 incorporated dishonesty in the wording of laws, which helped to further explain deceit and false pretense. The Act also streamlined laws that related to burglary, robbery and other theft-related crimes in which criminals sought to prevent the rightful owners of property from retaining ownership of any property which had monetary value.

 

 

Theft Act 1978

 

 

The United Kingdom has sought to constantly update laws in order to make them clear and current with the times. In addition, the laws are meant to be easily understood and prosecuted. In fact, the laws are written in such a way that they are all inclusive of theft, regardless of other intervening factors.

 

 

In the previous Act of 1968, certain crimes were defined as crimes committed through the use of false pretenses. In the new Act, the crimes were more clearly defined as crimes of deception. The wording of the new laws allowed more crimes to be included within each section which prevented criminals from finding loopholes in the wording.

 

 

Fraud Act 2006

 

 

The Fraud Act of 2006 was built on previous Theft Acts in the United Kingdom. The new Act more clearly defined many aspects of theft laws. First, the term false pretenses was no longer used to describe these types of crimes. The Acts were considered crimes of fraud.

 

 

The Act divided fraud into three clear categories so that citizens could easily understand what acts constituted fraud. Fraud committed through the use of false pretense was more efficiently described as fraud committed by false representation, failure to disclose pertinent information and abuse of power from a person in authority. 

 

 

In all cases, the perpetrator misrepresents facts in order to gain the property rights that rightfully belong to another person.

Like previous theft acts, the Fraud Act of 2006 sought to more clearly define theft through deception or fraud. In fact, the full title of the fraud act is, "An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly." It is quite obvious that the Act sought to define crimes committed through deception in a manner which strictly prohibited individuals from illegally obtaining property through false pretenses, fraud, or misrepresentation of facts.

 

 

The Fraud Act of 2006 was built on the foundation of previous acts which defined crimes of fraud. Previously, Acts such as the Theft Act of 1978 defined these types of crimes as crimes committed through false pretenses. However, crimes were much more difficult to prosecute when the laws were not easily defined. The Fraud Act of 2006 made crimes of this type much easier to prosecute because of the ease of defining the crimes. Also, the new Act was much more inclusive of these types of crimes due to the language contained in the Act.

 

 

The Fraud Act of 2006 defined all crimes that were perpetrated with the intent to deceive the victim while the offender gained some form of property. Crimes of that nature were put into three classes. Fraud crimes were labeled as misrepresentation, failure to disclose and abuse of a position, as they apply to the commission of a crime. The Fraud Act also laid out sentencing guidelines for persons convicted of crimes committed through acts of fraud.

 

 

It is interesting to note that similar crimes were first defined as crimes committed through false pretenses. With each additional update to laws that apply to crimes of this nature, the language more clearly defined both the crimes and the means of committing such crimes. False pretenses were an obvious act of fraud, but the definition of such acts was not as succinct as it is in the new laws.

 

 

With previous Acts, the laws were considered too complicated and extremely difficult to prosecute. Now, however, theft laws allow many types of crimes to be more easily prosecuted as they are easier to include under the new statutes.

 

 

Previous Acts that covered theft laws in the United Kingdom were not as succinct and easily understood as those in the Fraud Act of 2006. While the Act may contain shorter statutes, more crimes are actually covered in the statutes. In essence, the Act now encompasses enumerable crimes because of the simple language used to define acts of fraud. In addition, many types of property, even services, are covered simply due to the new, more inclusive language.

In both robbery and larceny charges, criminals intend to permanently deprive the victim of their personal property. During a robbery, the victim comes face to face with the perpetrator of the crime. In a robbery, the intent of the criminal is clear. They intend to permanently deprive the rightful owner or property from retaining possession of that property.

 

 

In a larceny charge, many of the facts of the crime remain the same. The intent of an individual facing a larceny charge was also to permanently deprive a person from possession of their property. However, larceny charges are often less serious than robbery charges because in larceny, the victim is usually not confronted by the thief. 

 

 

In robbery cases, the victim often complies with the demands of the perpetrator due to threats, intimidation, or actual acts of violence. In either case, the intent is the same. Both types of criminals hope to obtain property that they know does not belong to them, while permanently depriving the victim of that property.

 

 

The intent to permanently deprive a victim of property does not mean that the criminal must keep possession of that property permanently. It simply means that the rightful owner of the property will be permanently deprived of that property. 

 

 

For example, a person may accidentally walk away with the incorrect luggage at a carousel. When they get home and open the bag, they notice they have taken the wrong one home with them. However, upon inspection, they find that the goods inside the bag are quite pleasing to them or have some significant monetary value.

 

 

If the person decides not to return the luggage to the rightful owner, they could face a larceny charge because they have no plans of returning that property to the rightful owner. If, under the same circumstances, the person returns the bag to the rightful owner, no crime has been committed. Yet, if an individual was leaving an airport and a perpetrator cornered and threatened them in to turning over their bag, the crime would be robbery, a more serious degree of theft.

 

 

In many types of property crimes, the intent is very similar. The perpetrator of a property crime often has the intent of taking the property of someone else without ever intending to return that property to the rightful owner. However, the means of achieving the theft can vary greatly among crimes.

 

 

There are, in fact, many ways that criminals achieve theft. In some cases, there is violence and in others the victim never even sees the criminal. In addition, some victims are not even immediately aware that a crime has taken place. Yet, all of the crimes are similar in that the victim permanently loses possession of property that rightfully belongs to them.