Cheating criminal PDF

Preview

Summary

CHEATING S defines cheating into 2 parts (tgk pc) In Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah v PP: Cheating can be divided into two parts: i. Cheating where, deception practised on the victim, the accused dishonestly or fraudulently induces that person to deliver property to any person or consent that any person sh...

Description

CHEATING S.415 defines cheating into 2 parts (tgk pc) In Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah v PP: Cheating can be divided into two parts: i.

Cheating where, by deception practised on the victim, the accused dishonestly or fraudulently induces that person to deliver property to any person or consent that any person shall retain any property;

ii.

Where, by deception practised upon a victim, the accused intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do, if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property

In Mohd Jailani bin Saliman v PP: The elements of cheating are: i.

Deception of any person;

ii.

Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person a) to deliver any property to any person, or b) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or

iii.

Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person or body, mind, reputation or property.

I. DECEPTION  There must be deception, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement.  To constitute an offence there is need to establish deception practiced by the accused.  There must be evidence of a deception practised upon a person who is thereby induced to part with his money (Mohamed Kasdi v PP)  ‘Deception’ is not defined. It may be defined as causing to believe what is false, or is misleading as to a matter of fact or leading into error.  To constitute the offence of cheating, the deception must precede and induce the delivery or retention of property.  Mohd Jalani bin Saliman v PP ‘Deception may be by conduct or words. What is sufficient to constitute deception is dependant on the facts of each case. Deception has an element of misleading. It is inducing a person to believe as true something which is false.’



Chow Dih v PP F: A was charged with cheating 6 patients by deceiving them into believing that they were suffering from various serious ailments. On appeal, he contended that there was no evidence to show that the deception was the effective cause for the patients to keep returning to the A to receive treatment. H: It is not necessary that the representation made by the accused should be the sole cause of the damage or loss. It is sufficient if the complainant was partly and materially, though not entirely, influenced by the false pretence of the accused.

II. INDUCE DELIVERY OR RETENTION OF PROPERTY  No cheating unless by reason of deception the person deceived is induced to part with any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do but for the deception (Khoo Kay Jin v PP)  Under the first part of S.415, cheating is committed when, the person deceiving by reason of the deception -



Fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person retain any property.

Pasupathy Kanagasaby v PP CoA accepted that under the first part of S. 415, the moment a person is deceived and by the practice of such deception a property is fraudulently or dishonestly obtained from him, then the offence of cheating is committed.

 Under the first part of S.415, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. However, S. 415 does not require that both fraud and dishonesty to be proved, one or the other is sufficient but there must be inducement of a person to deliver property to another or to do something which he would not do if he were not so deceived.  ‘Fraudulently’ is defined in S.25: ‘A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intend to defraud…’  Dishonestly is defined in S. 24: ‘Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to the person, or wrongful loss to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is said to do that thing ‘dishonestly’ Loh Liang Gun v PP 1st App’s duty was to interview hire purchase applicants to ensure that their particulars in the proposal forms were correct. It was alleged that the appellant had by his recommendations on the proposal forms falsely represented to Hong Leong Finance that all the particulars produced by him had been checked and verified to be true and correct. Acting on the his recommendations and false representations, HLF through its branch manager was induced to approve the hire purchase loans to 10 persons amounting to RM440,000.

The essential ingredients of S.420, for which offence that first appellant was convicted:  HLF delivered property (amount stated in the charges respectively) to another person (2nd App);  1st App induced HLF to deliver that property to 2nd App  HLF acted upon such inducement in consequence of 1st App’s deceit;  1st App acted dishonestly in so inducing HLF to part with the property; and  HLF suffered damage or harm as a result of the deceit. PP v Alinsung Geb Urbasik Axel F: 1st D, a German national, went to Brunei to look for business opportunities. While in flight, he met 2nd D, a Pakistani businessman. Later, 2nd D asked 1st D to cash travelers' cheques for him in return for which, 2nd D would give a certain sum for the cheques cashed. 1st D duly cashed the cheques at various banks over a period of three days until his arrest. The two defendants faced 23 charges for offences under section 489, 489B and cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. 2 nd D absconded (ran away). Trial proceeded against 1st D H: On the charge of cheating that the prosecution had established that the cashiers of the various banks were deceived into handing over cash to the first defendant because they believed the travellers’ cheques were genuine. This amounted to deception and by presenting the travellers' cheques knowing them to be counterfeit, there was dishonest inducement by the first defendant to another person that cash should be delivered upon presentation of the travellers’ cheques and therefore cheating was established.

Foo Tiang Kwang v PP F: App was charged with cheating a woman by inducing her to part with $300 by falsely pretending he was in a position to obtain blood for transfusion to her husband. Accused then approached an Indian acquaintance to give blood purportedly to the accused’s relative. H: The complainant had not cheated. She paid to have a pint of blood to be administered to her husband and it was supplied....