Who repealed the offence of 'Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception?'?

Question

At the moment rip off the people is proving a lucrative revenue generating business.

Banks, Credit Card Companies, Councils,Traffic Wardens, TV Companies, Ford, Sony, .... the list of people and organisations who are using every dishonest scam they can think of to to trick us into parting with our cash, seems endless.

Now, In 1968 The Criminal Law Act came into force when I was a copper. A section of the act said this. 'If by any deception a person obtains by deception a pecuniary advantage for himself, or another he is guilty of theft, by Criminal Deception.

So how is it, I wondered, that none of the people responsible for ripping of you and I by deception, ie. illegal bank charges, green taxes, mortage endowment policies, extended warranties, etc are never prosecuted?

Because some pratt quietly repealed the act that protected us.

Bur who?

Answer 1

I dont know what sort of copper you was but the offence you mention was Sect16(2) of the Theft Act 1968.It was replaced by the 1978 Theft Act but that isnt really thought out and doesnt cover the offences that the old Act did.

Answer 2

Section 16(2)(a) of the 1968 Theft Act provided that,

'A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any pecuniary advantage shall on conviction on indictment, be liable to a imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.'

There was one case in particular in English Law that dealt with section 16(2)(a). This was the case of 'Ray (1974) AC 370 House of Lords'. Five men, including Ray, went to a Chinese restaurant for a meal, intending to pay for it. After eating it, Ray decided not to pay, and left when the waiter left the room. He was charged under section 16(2)(a).

Because, at the time of ordering there was no deception, as he had intended to pay, Ray was originally found not guilty. Only an appeal to the House of Lords allowed a conviction to be carried. The House of Lords ruled that he had a pecuniary advantage as he hadn't paid, and had deceived by the implied representation of being an honest customer who was going to pay.

As a reult of this decision parliament enacted the 1978 Theft Act. It did not repeal the pecuniary advantage aspect of the 1968 Act but rather it renamed it, and subdivided it into three sections,

Obtaining Property by Deception (s.15);
Obtaining Services By Deception (s.1); and
Evasion of Liability by Deception (s.2)

Section 3 was created to cover the difficulties that had plagued section 16(2)(a). As the main fault of 16(2)(a) was that of whether there was any deception when obtaining a pecuniary advantage, section 3 of the 1978 Act made the existence of deception unnecessary.

Section 3 covers 'making off without payment', which means that anyone who;

... knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or services done is required or expected from him, makes off without having paid... with intent to avoid payment...

shall be guilty of an offence.

This, unlike the old section 16(2)(a), does not cover services that are not legally enforceable

Whether the repeal of section 16(2)(a) has meant that prostitutes and gamblers are now unable to claim when unpaid has not, as yet, been ascertained, although it is possibly that this would come under section 1 of the 1978 Act - obtaining 'services by deception'.

The 1978 Act is still in force.

The law relating to banking charges is not to be found in the criminal law, but in contract law. The rule is if there’s a breach of contact under English or Scottish law, any charge should not exceed the cost of the breach. In other words, banks can only impose charges which are in proportion to their costs. Endowment policies are slightly different. When a person signs up to such a policy they should have been told that, as performance is linked to risk, the endowment may not grow big enough to pay off their mortgage. In other words, the complaint is about the way the prodict is sold not the performance of the policy. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme deals with complaints under that scheme.

Answer 3

The Fraud Act 2006 has replaced previous legislation. The old offences still exist but the wording of the charges have been changed. Don't ask me why.

Answer 4

You're not likely to get much support for your question here. In times past when I've asked similar questions, I've only received answers from corporate shills who support the rights of banks and businesses to fleece us for all we have.

Answer 5

Our beloved Parliament, by the Fraud Act 2006. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

Brilliant, innit!

Answer 6

are you sure its been repealed i saw acase not long ago where these were the exact charges