Conspiracy To Defraud Landmark Cases
What is Conspiracy to Defraud?
Conspiracy to defraud is a criminal offence involving an agreement between two or more persons to dishonestly deprive someone of property, money, or legal rights, or to cause a loss or risk of loss to another, through deceit or dishonest means.
Unlike other conspiracy offences, the key feature here is the intent to cheat or deceive.
It does not require the actual success of the fraudulent scheme; the agreement and intent are sufficient.
It can involve public bodies, companies, or individuals as victims.
Legal Foundation
Conspiracy to defraud is a common law offence in England and Wales.
It covers a broad range of fraudulent conduct and often involves financial or commercial wrongdoing.
The prosecution must prove:
There was an agreement or common purpose to defraud.
The parties acted dishonestly.
There was an intent to cause loss or risk of loss to the victim.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Conspiracy to Defraud
1. R v. Anderson [1986] AC 27
Facts:
Defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud by rigging the betting market.
Issue:
What constitutes the actus reus of conspiracy to defraud? Is actual loss required?
Held:
The House of Lords confirmed that conspiracy to defraud requires an agreement to use dishonest means to prejudice another’s rights or property. Actual loss is not essential; the risk of loss suffices.
Importance:
Established that agreement and dishonesty are key, not the success of the fraud.
2. R v. Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Facts:
Defendants conspired to launder money, but were acquitted of conspiracy to defraud because the underlying fraudulent conduct was not established.
Issue:
Is knowledge of the dishonest act essential for conspiracy to defraud?
Held:
The House of Lords ruled that mere suspicion is insufficient; the defendant must know and agree to the dishonest purpose.
Importance:
Clarified the mental element: parties must have full knowledge and intention regarding the fraudulent conspiracy.
3. R v. Boyle and Boyle [1987] 1 WLR 150
Facts:
Brothers involved in a complex scheme to fraudulently obtain insurance payouts.
Issue:
Can conspiracy to defraud extend to schemes involving fraudulent documents and complex deceit?
Held:
Court held that conspiracy to defraud encompasses any dishonest agreement to prejudice another’s rights, including elaborate schemes.
Importance:
Expanded the scope to include complex commercial frauds.
4. R v. McNally (1882) 14 Cox CC 597
Facts:
Defendants conspired to deprive a company of money by false pretences.
Issue:
Is it necessary to show the agreement was to commit a specific offence?
Held:
Court held that it is enough if the agreement is to use dishonest means to cause loss or risk loss, even if the exact offence is not agreed upon.
Importance:
Confirmed conspiracy to defraud includes general agreements to defraud, not limited to specific crimes.
5. R v. McFall [1994] 1 Cr App R 40
Facts:
A group conspired to defraud the public by fraudulent use of share prospectuses.
Issue:
Is it necessary to show the victim was actually defrauded?
Held:
Court held actual loss or deception is not essential; the agreement and intent suffice.
Importance:
Reinforced that conspiracy to defraud is concerned with the agreement and intent, not outcome.
6. R v. O’Connor [1992] 1 WLR 1108
Facts:
Defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud by creating false invoices.
Issue:
Can conspiracy to defraud apply where the victim has not been directly deprived but is put at risk?
Held:
The court confirmed that causing risk of loss or prejudice is enough to support conspiracy to defraud.
Importance:
Expanded the offence to include risk of harm to property or rights.
7. R v. Husseyn [2011] EWCA Crim 1019
Facts:
The defendant involved in a conspiracy to defraud the public by selling counterfeit goods.
Issue:
Does conspiracy to defraud cover intellectual property fraud?
Held:
Court held that intellectual property rights are protected, and conspiracy to defraud applies to fraudulent schemes involving counterfeit products.
Importance:
Broadened the scope to include intellectual property and brand fraud.
📊 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Ruling | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Anderson (1986) | Agreement to defraud, actual loss needed? | Risk of loss sufficient | Focus on dishonest agreement |
| R v. Saik (2006) | Mental element for conspiracy | Full knowledge required | Suspicion not enough |
| R v. Boyle and Boyle (1987) | Complex fraud schemes | Includes elaborate schemes | Expanded scope |
| R v. McNally (1882) | Specific offence needed? | General agreement enough | Broad application |
| R v. McFall (1994) | Victim defrauded? | Agreement and intent enough | Outcome irrelevant |
| R v. O’Connor (1992) | Risk of loss | Risk sufficient | No actual loss needed |
| R v. Husseyn (2011) | Intellectual property fraud | Included under conspiracy | Wider scope of offence |
⚖️ Key Legal Principles
Agreement and dishonesty are central to conspiracy to defraud.
Actual loss is not required; it is sufficient that the conspiracy intended to cause loss or risk of loss.
Full knowledge and intent to participate in the fraudulent scheme are necessary.
The offence covers a broad spectrum of fraudulent activity, from simple scams to complex commercial fraud.
The offence protects property rights, public bodies, and intellectual property.
The law focuses on the dangerousness of the agreement rather than the success of the fraud.
⚖️ Conclusion
Conspiracy to defraud remains a powerful and flexible offence used to prosecute collaborative fraud schemes. Landmark cases have clarified its boundaries—especially the mental element and the necessity of dishonest agreement—and expanded its reach to modern fraud contexts, including intellectual property and commercial scams.
RELATED Blog
0 comments