Quote:
|
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
Is that like you know, fraud? Seeing as there are no such vhings as angels and the whole this is complete bullshit.
|
Pre-post confession - I didn't actually know the 2006 Fraud Act was in force. I only remembered the bill. However it states:
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
B
Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 2
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).
I've highlighted the relevant bits.
The questions are:
1) Is her representation that there are angels untrue or misleading?
2) Is she saying that "there are angels this is a fact" and therefore is she making a representation?
3) Is she saying this in order to make a gain for herself?
4) Is all of this dishonest?
These are the questions. A jury ought to decide.