Clause 6
Fraud Bill [Lords]
12:45 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
In clauses 6 and 7 we deal with an issue of detail that is of some importance and althoughit may be of greater importance in the context ofclause 7, clause 6 is the right place to tackle the matter.
I have difficulty with the clause, which says:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.”
As we discussed on Second Reading—going back to the old Theft Act—this is a mixture of IT fraud and the old offence of going equipped to cheat and covers both areas; that is, having in one’s possession something that could be used in connection with fraud. What does “for use” mean? Does it mean that the prosecution has to prove that the article was for use with a fraud or merely that it can be used in a fraud? If it is the latter, the clause is too widely drawn. The specific intent must be proved. As I said on Second Reading, I am anxious about that because articles that could be used in fraud could also be put to innocent uses. I am concerned to ensure that the person who we criminalise and prosecute successfully is the person who intends to use an article in fraud, not just the one who has it in his possession.