|
The Theft Act 1978 (c 31) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It supplemented the earlier deception offences contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those offences and adding new provisions. See also the Fraud Act 2006.〔(Fraud Act 2006 commentary ) 〕 ==Section 1 - Obtaining services by deception== This section created the offence of obtaining services by deception. It was repealed on 15 January 2007 by Schedule 3 to the Fraud Act 2006. As amended by the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996, it read: :(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence. :(2) It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for. :(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan. There must be a deception which, according to section 5(1), has the same meaning as in section 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968, i.e. any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person. This deception must be the cause of the obtaining (see the discussion on causation in Deception (criminal law) and Obtaining property by deception#By any deception). The defendant must obtain a service as defined in section 1(2), i.e. the victim must confer a benefit on the defendant (or another). The 'services' must be non-gratuitous, i.e. the benefits must be provided by the victim of the deception in the expectation that they are to be paid for at commercial rates (see section 1(2)). It must be conferred by the doing, causing, or permitting of some act. A failure to act that confers a benefit is not sufficient. Thus, a person who employs a lawyer or accountant without ever intending to pay, may commit an offence under section 1. But a person who lies to a neighbour to secure the loan of a power drill does not commit an offence because the benefit is not obtained on the understanding that it has been or will be paid for. In ''R v Halai'' () Crim LR 624, CA, the defendant made false statements in an application for a mortgage and thereby obtained a survey, the opening of an account and a mortgage advance. Note that the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 introduced section 1(3) specifically to provide that a loan amounts to a service. This dispenses with that part of the decision in Halai (which had, in any event, been overruled by ''R v Graham''〔''R v Graham (H K)'', ''R v Kansal'', ''R v Ali (Sajid)'', ''R v Marsh and others'' () 1 Cr App R 302, CA〕 prior to the Act) As to the opening of an account, contrast ''R v Shortland'' () Crim LR 893 in which the Court of Appeal held that, on the evidence presented, opening bank accounts under false names did not amount to the section 1 offence, but suggested that it might have done if evidence that it had to be paid for had been presented. The ''mens rea'' for all offences is dishonesty. A person could commit this offence by obtaining services for another person.〔''R v Nathan (Ronald Stephen)'' () Crim LR 835, CA〕 As to obtaining of hire-purchase agreements, see R v Widdowson, 82 Cr App R 314, () RTR 124, () Crim LR 233, CA The following cases are also relevant: *''R v Teong Sun Chuah and Teong Tatt Chuah'' () Crim LR 463, CA *''R v Cooke (David)'' () Crim LR 436, () 4 CL 187, 3 Archbold News 2, CA *''R v Cummings-John'' () Crim LR 660 *''R v Naviede'' () Crim LR 662, CA Liability for offences by corporations Section 18 of the Theft Act 1968 applied in relation to this section as it applied in relation to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.〔The Theft Act 1978, section 5(1)〕 Mode of trial and sentence This offence was triable either way.〔The Theft Act 1978, section 4(1)〕 A person guilty of this offence was liable, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years,〔The Theft Act 1978, section 4(2)(a)〕 or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.〔The Theft Act 1978, section 4(3)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Theft Act 1978」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|