Obtaining property by deception - cheques
Date Updated: January 2012
Title: Theft
Offence: Obtaining property by deception - Cheques
Legislation: S15 Theft Act 1968
Commencement Date: Repealed as from 15.1.2007 by the FRAUD ACT 2006 , however under transitional provisions this section is still applicable to offences where the offence was partly committed before 15th January 2007- see section14(2) and schedule 2 of the Fraud Act for detailed provisions.
Mode of Trial: Either Way
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years
Culpability & Harm
Substantial amounts involved.
Substantial loss sustained.
Planning.
Professionalism.
Offending carried out over a long period
Offender acting with others.
Offender recruited others.
Offender prime mover
Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his or her means.
Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
None
Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)
R v CLARK [1998] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.)142 B6-12003 which updated the guidance issued in R v BARRICK [1985] 7 Cr.App.R.(S.)142 B6 - immediate imprisonment is inevitable in breach of trust cases unless there are exceptional circumstances or the amount of money involved is very small.
Less than £17,500 up to 21 months
£17,500 to £100,000 2-3 years
£100,000 to £250,000 3-4 years
£250,000 to £1 million 5-9 years
£1 million or more 10 years +
R. V KEFFORD (MARK JAMES) [2002] 2 CR. APP. R. (S.) 106
For economic crimes, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.
K was employed by a building society and opened false accounts into which he made windfall payments and then withdrew money as needed. The amount of £11,120 was taken. When interviewed the appellant immediately made full and frank confessions. He had no previous convictions. After the discovery of the offences the appellant sold his home so as to be able to repay the sums he had taken. On appeal his sentence was reduced from 12 months imprisonment to 4 months. The court commented that even in the present circumstances, in cases involving breach of trust where the sum involved was not small, the guidance in Clarke was still applicable even where it was a first offence, however, a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed when necessary and only for as long as was necessary in view of the overcrowded prison system. For economic crimes, especially where the offender was of previous good character, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.
R v ROACH [2002] 1 CR.AP.R(S) 259
The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining a money transfer by deception. The defendant worked for a firm supplying carers to elderly and infirm people. Over a period of about two years cashed cheques to the value of £2,875 from a 80 year old client. 18m. Clark [1998] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 95 and Barrick (1985) 7 Cr.App.R.(S.) 142, guidelines were not relevant to offending of the kind under consideration. They related to theft in breach of trust from employers, charitable bodies or similar organisations. The distinctive feature of this case was that it involved the exploitation of pitifully vulnerable people, whether due to age or infirmity or a combination of both. The sentence passed could not be said to be manifestly excessive; in the Court's view it was an entirely correct and appropriate sentence.
