The And Liability Under The Fraud Act 2006

Traditionally, the positive image of a company or a brand is very important in the contemporary world. As a result, the question of morality of each individual working within an organization is of a paramount importance. In such a situation there should be no exceptions from the rule and executives could not be in a privileged position. This is the desirable ideal many companies strive to achieve at least in a public eye. However, the reality turns to be quite different from what is expected and the analyzed case of an executive’s double standard is just another evidence of the fact that the real life is so complicated that the common rules, including moral

A1. The Nature of the incident was that an employee was able to hack into the computer system and gain access to the financial payroll system, human resources and even email system. This employee used several methods in order to gain access into the system: IP spoofing, Data modification, Man in the middle attack and compromised-key attack. As a result the employee was able to tamper with payroll system. An auditor discovered the discrepancies and tried to make upper management aware of the situation through email, but the email was intercepted by the hacker. The hacker impersonated an employee and persuaded the auditor into granting him more access into the system which resulted in additional sabotage into the payroll system. Hacker

Graham I see that we disagree with whom should win the case, but I understand where you are coming from. Enterprise was paying and improving the property so it makes me wonder why Jane wanted to evict them after one year. Jane was probably trying to make a profit from someone else or selling the property. Yes business is business but morally she didn’t have to break the oral lease. Sometimes we need to go back to shaking hands and keeping our word. The textbook states, “That the Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing and signed by the defendant to be enforceable against the defendant” (Lau, 2012, p. 187).

I believe that the Statute of Frauds is designed to prevent fraudulent claims of existence of a contract. I believe it makes it harder to make such a false or fraudulent claims by requiring the claimant to have proof other than just testimony that a contract existed before the claimant gets its day in court.

L’Tanya Allen Harris, the housing inspector, encouraged me to bring this issue to the Fraud Department. Recently, I spoke with her and she said that I should bring this up to the Fraud Department. She agrees that the utility receipt proves that there is an oral agreement between the landlord and tenant. Also, she states that the fraud department can help the landlord with this particular issue.

In regards to this case study where a hotel manager orders 1,000 dollars’ worth of sheets from a sales representative of a linen company and a dispute arises between them. Can the Statute of Frauds provide a defense to the Lawsuit by the hotel? I believe that it can based on the statue for goods (The Statute of Frauds and Contract Law.) They signed the memo and faxed it over to the linen company, as long as the dispute didn’t happen before ten days then the linen company is bound to the contract. Statute of frauds states that it is a binding contract if the buyer or purchaser of the goods signs the memo and gives it to the seller and the cost or amount is over 500.00 (The Statute of Frauds and Contract Law.) The case study says that the manager

The Fraud Act 2006 was introduced for the purpose of broadening the fraud offences that resided under the Theft Act 1968 and 1978. The implications of the offences within the Theft Act and Fraud Act will be critically discussed throughout the essay with the addition on how the changes in the law has made prosecuting offenders simpler. It is imperative to compare the two Acts, to allow a greater understanding from an investigators perspective if the enactment has had a positive impact. To support the points discussed, case law and legislation will be utilised appropriately.

The historical backdrop of offenses of fraud and theft can be viewed as containing three fundamental waves. The main happened in England in the eighteenth century and focused on the offense of acquiring property by falsifications. This was portrayed by the administrative augmentation of the custom-based law offense of robbery, and a resulting and proceeded with sanctioning of particular offenses to manage singular issues. The second wave took after the order of the Theft Act 1968 (UK) c 60 ('Theft Act') and denoted a move far from considering property to be the subject of the offense. In the Theft Act a consider endeavor was made to make general misrepresentation offenses. Inside the Criminal Law Review Committee ('CLRC'), which defined the

The word ‘Fraud’ means that wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.The person who committed the ‘fraud’ case is against the law and the action will be taken by the authorities.The United Kingdom’s parliament had legislated the Theft act 1968,Theft Act 1978 and Theft Act 2006.The question here is how was the relationship between both the Theft Act and offence of fraud?What is the relationship between both the Theft Act and the Fraud Act 2006 ? Author will discuss these two question,analysis whether the offence of fraud had addressed the difficulties under the deception of the Theft Act 1968 and Theft Act 1978 and did the Fraud Act 2006 achieve the expectation and the requirement of the society in this

Fraud is a criminal act which involves deception to gain an unfair advantage more often financially Bolton and Hand (2002:235).In this essay, fraud is discussed in relation to the critical paradigm which Schichor (1980:14) believes is an over-simplification criminal behaviour as it is based on the econo-political factor. Apart from fraud discussion, an analysis of possible fraud acts offenders as well as the limitations of the critical paradigm is included in this essay. Typologies such as electoral fraud seem to related well to the critical paradigm as the rich do define crime and laws protect them at the poor’s expense. However, fraud types such as E-tailing, insurance, wire and accounting fraud are not committed by the poor in rebellion to the laws imposed on them by the rich as the paradigm suggests. Zahra, Priem & Rasheed (2005.p. 804-805) say the managerial administrators commit fraud more than the poor. Perhaps due to the poor’s lack of information and advanced technology in contrast with the rich’s quest to get more wealth.

Common Law fraud is difficult to prove. Actual fraud liability covers all foreseeable users of the accountants work product, but scienter needs to be proven. Since the embezzlement scheme was carried out by the President, the accountant cannot be sued for actual fraud. Constructive fraud occurs when a professional either misstated a material fact, acted recklessly, or was grossly negligent. Reliance needs to be proven, but privity is not required. The likelihood for the accountant being held liable for fraud is minimal.

An auditor happens to discover an error in the human resource system that allowed an employee to hack into the company human resources record systems and change their base salary rate to receive a pay raise on two paychecks. The employee was able to eavesdrop on the network using IP spoofing technique to hijack a trusted host on the network and hide their identity in the process. The technique allowed the hijacker to steal and alter sensitive data such as payroll records. The employee also monitors the email traffic about the incident, to use the man-in-middle attack an intercept the auditor email to several individuals at the company explaining what had happened. During the man-in-middle attack, he was able to impersonate the individuals the

“Today’s fraudster is clever and operates in an environment ripe for criminal activity. Economic unrest is making it easier for employees to find ways to set fraud in motion – and a new breed of offenders is finding cunning ways to do so. After more than 60 years, the classic fraud triangle of three elements or events that motivate an employee to cross the line has morphed

Occupational fraud can be defined as “the use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets” (ACFE, 2016). Asset misappropriation proved to be the most common form of occupational fraud with 83% of cases but it has the smallest median loss of $125,000 whereas the Financial statement fraud occurs in less than 10% of cases but its median loss of $975,000 (ACFE, 2016). This figure only shows the amount of losses caused by the known fraud cases, as it is impossible to know the undetected and unreported cases (ACFE, 2016). However, it is essential to determine the cost of fraud as it helps to understand the scope and impact of the problem and helps the organizations to quantify the fraud risk and assist in deciding the allocation of antifraud resources and programs. The financial losses are also related to the length of time the fraud remain undetected. The 2016 study by ACFE finds that the median duration of a fraud goes undetected was 18 months and in some extreme cases more than five years (ACFE, 2016).

This essay is going to discuss the elements required for fraudulent misrepresentation and if they are present in the situations of Mr Wheelie and Mr Spoke. Common law will be used to support Mr Wheelie’s intention of taking Mr Spoke to court. The components of fraudulent misrepresentation in this situation are seen through the actions that Mr Spoke took to seek agreement with Mr Wheelie in the contract. In these circumstances there was a statement of fact that was false pre-contract. Mr Spoke knew the statement to be false but made the statement with the intent to induce Mr Wheelie into the contract. Mr Wheelie acted upon the statement and will potentially suffer financial loss as a result. Finally the remedies that Mr Wheelie can potentially claim will be addressed.