New Clause 3

Part of Fraud Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:30 am on 22 June 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mike O'Brien Mike O'Brien Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department 9:30, 22 June 2006

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues, some of which touch on points made earlier, particularly the question of where we draw the line between what is and ought to be a crime of fraud, and what is a commercial relationship that we decide should not be criminal, in which the buyer needs to beware, but where there are various safeguards through advertising regulations and other means, and where there are civil rights. The hon. Gentleman also asked what we should be prepared to prosecute in our courts, where actions are committed by persons abroad.

The UK does not have jurisdiction over foreign companies, wherever their ownership is, for acts carried out overseas that have no impact in the UK. However, if the fraud results in a loss of property in the UK, we have some jurisdiction. Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 confers jurisdiction over certain crimes of dishonesty if a “relevant event” occurs in England and Wales, which 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.”

Paragraph 24 of schedule 1 to the Bill amends definitions of offences for the purposes of the jurisdictional provisions of the 1993 Act, deleting references to offences that are repealed and adding references to new offences. Those changes ensure that the wide jurisdictional provisions of the 1993 Act apply to the new fraud offences so that, in a phishing case, for example, where a false representation is made in the UK, it does not matter whether the offender is operating from abroad, because he may be caught by the offence in clause 2.

In addition, paragraph 25 of schedule 1 amends section 2 of the 1993 Act to ensure that the offence of  fraud in clause 1 can be prosecuted if the only event that takes place in this jurisdiction is the gain or loss of property. That provision covers cases where fraud committed entirely overseas leads to the removal of funds from a bank in the UK. I hope that with those reassurances, such as they are, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.

The ambition of the new clause is extraordinary. It seeks to broaden our courts’ jurisdiction over fraud offences committed by anyone located anywhere in the world where fraud is a crime. The new clause is so extraordinarily wide that I dare say that it would collapse under the weight of its own ambition, as it would require anybody—not just UK nationals who live in jurisdictions where fraud is a crime—to behave in accordance with UK fraud law. A citizen of the USA or France, or anyone else for that matter, who commits acts while in their home country or anywhere where fraud is a crime, would face prosecution by UK prosecutors, even if the crime had no impact in the UK. The hon. Gentleman indicated that that is not his intention, but it would be the effect of the new clause as drafted.

We want to ensure that fraudsters, where they can be properly dealt with in our courts, are so dealt with. They can be located in any number of places all over the world. We have all heard about the number of sinister scams over the years involving Spanish lottery frauds or African advanced fee frauds. Such cases already have some coverage under the 1993 Act. If it is the case that proof of any act or omission if is required for conviction—for example, if the deception or gain takes place in the UK—our jurisdiction will cover it.