Fraud Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 32A:"Page 11, line 18, at end insert—" ““24A   (1)   Amend section 2 (jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences) as follows. (2)   In subsection (1), after ““means”” insert ““(subject to subsection (1A))””. (3)   After subsection (1) insert— ““(1A)   In relation to an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (fraud), ““relevant event”” includes— (a)   if the fraud involved an intention to make a gain and the gain occurred, that occurrence; (b)   if the fraud involved an intention to cause a loss or to expose another to a risk of loss and the loss occurred, that occurrence.”””” The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35A. The amendments look complex but they have a simple aim; that is, to ensure that our courts continue to have jurisdiction over frauds where the only element of the crime that takes place here is the actual gain or loss of property. Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 currently gives our courts jurisdiction over fraud offences,"““if any of the events which are relevant events in relation to the offence occurred in England and Wales””." A ““relevant event”” is defined as,"““any act or omission or other event (including any result of one or more acts or omissions), proof of which is required for conviction of the offence.””" The existing offence of obtaining property by deception requires both the deception of a victim and the obtaining of property. The offences of obtaining a money transfer by deception and obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception also contain these two distinct elements: the deception and the obtaining. In our global economy, it is frequently the case that the deception can take place in a different country from that in which the transfer takes place. False representation may be made abroad which convinces people in England or Wales to transfer funds to a bank account in London and then on to the fraudster’s account in some other country. At the moment, our courts have jurisdiction over these cases, because, although the deception takes place abroad, the transfer, which is another element of the offence, takes place in the UK. Similarly, if the transfer takes place abroad but the deception takes place in the UK, our courts have jurisdiction. Schedule 1 already makes consequential amendments to the 1993 Act to provide that it applies to the new offences in the Bill. However, at the moment, the effect of the 1993 Act on the new general fraud offences would be limited due to one crucial difference between the existing deception offences and the new general offence which this Bill will create. Noble Lords will know that under the new fraud offences the emphasis is on the dishonest intention of the defendant to commit the fraud. There is no need to prove that property has actually been obtained. While that is a step forward in prosecuting fraud—we have been over that ground—it means that the jurisdictional provisions in the 1993 Act will not bite on the new offence if the only act within our jurisdiction is the obtaining of property because that would cease to be a ““relevant event””. Our concern grows from the fact that people are ever more mobile and more global in outlook, and that outsourced banking and international transactions of all sorts are increasingly taking place. I consider that it is highly desirable to ensure that our courts will continue to have jurisdiction over frauds when the gain or loss that the fraudster makes takes place here. These amendments will ensure that any gain or loss that the fraudster intends to make that actually occurs here will constitute a ““relevant event”” for the purposes of the jurisdictional provisions. That should ensure that our courts continue to have jurisdiction when property is fraudulently gained in England or Wales, even though the deception has taken place in another country. Amendment No. 35A makes similar changes for Northern Ireland. I hope that noble Lords will think that the amendment is beneficial. I beg to move.