Home > Blossary: Few Words on Fraude
Few Words on Fraud In Penal Law, we learn about fraud, which is one of the most important terms-axes of Law and Penal Law to analyze. Thus, how many types of ‘fraud’ exist? 1) The direct fraud, 2)the indirect fraud (possible, or contigent fraud) and a mean type that is called 3) fraud of necessity. Before we come to analyze these types of fraud, let’s consider first that this is just an introduction/reference to this term, it cannot be exhausted even in one whole book, being a major chapter of Penal Law, where applicable. So, definition of fraud is: that one proceeds to a fraudulent action or expresses fraud verbally, being aware of results and consequences, thus intentionally, while at the same time he/she accepts the results..and consequences. This is rather definition of ‘direct fraud’ thus intentional one. For ex. we can say ‘an intentional murder, from fraud’, this is direct fraud, that is created/derives from internal motives of perpetrator toward victim, for any reasons, and of course has to do with structure of soul and mind of each one..(we’ll get soonest to that point..hereafter).. When we talk on ‘indirect fraud’, thus possible, potential fraud, when it can be detected but not actually proved. This kind of fraud is guessed, but not proved, as other minor penal acts are involved in main act for ex. robbery, theft, but it’s however not proved, due mean other minor penal acts, that in terms of quantity, they are less in number than major act, and you can’t distinguish clearly whether it’s direct or indirect fraud. You guess: the source of this kind of fraud is detection of true facts, that upon being described in a way of ‘determinism’, they can imply ‘indirect fraud’ while later, it can be proved it was (direct) fraud some times: For ex. in Law, we have the ‘cusp’ of so said ‘criminal negligence’ and that of fraud: For ex.: a car driver drives too fast, and kills someone on the street, while he/she at the same time he/she runs away with car. When arrested, and be led to court by any interest third party, for ex. relatives of victim, he/she can claim that he/she was in rush, and was forced to drive too fast, because he/she was informed that his/her child was seriously ill and might die..-In this case, he must prove this, by bringing to court the relative proof of evidence, for ex. certificates from doctor etc…for further investigation, and of course in view of a human death, he/she will be punished, with relative (reduced) punishment of ‘murder from (criminal) negligence; he/she won’t avoid punishment, as in this case what is punished is the ‘objective substance of crime’.- In another case, car driver may claim, and this may be true of course, thus being an acceptable or relatively acceptable claim, creating thus relative argument that ‘he/she ran away because, having seen he/she’d killed someone, he/she got in panic, and ‘not try’ but ‘want to escape and did’. This act also is subject to punishment from court, respectively, say subject (here car-driver) is subject to relative punishment, may be not as criminal act but at least as serious penal act, in this case. This was a case of indirect, possible, thus potential fraud. We’ll deal more here with direct fraud, or possible fraud, when it’s proven true, thus direct fraud, later from true facts, and inquisition..as well as of course ‘hearing procedure at Court’. Reasons of fraud can be many, as described above: They have to do, generally with structure of mind, soul and generally personality of person who commits an act, of course always illegal act in terms of result and objective substance of act, but also, how this objective substance of penal act is ‘translated, interpreted in terms of subjective substance of act’: We have elsewhere in recent past, said in a relative chapter, that ‘subjective substance of penal act is ‘the concrete, specific content a subject gives to penal act X, in personal terms, on basis of his/her own structure of personality, mind and heart etc, before being said, it’s a ‘crime’ or identified as crime and not single penal act. That’s why, in cases of murder for ex. ‘from strong anger’, wits are asked in Court to describe and refer, concretely, details on subject of act committed, thus ‘’his/her previous honest life, his social status, wits from his/her job position, family status etc. so that Court can evaluate both ‘actor and act’ as objectively and spherically as possible. And if positive, the accused person in Court, cannot be accused of fraud, if this act is proven to be done ‘under very special circumstances, and conditions, by examining of course the previous relation he/she had with victim.. In order to detect fraud, and ensure it in Court the following multi-factor relation should be examined: a) Reason, motive-intention, condition-circumstance, result, …leading to conclusion of fraud or not. What is then the most frequent usual source of fraud?: It’s basically envy: Envy derives from egoism, and can potentially or directly produce fraud, lead to fraudulent acts, thus, in order to qualify a penal act as ‘criminal’ act, the pojint of ‘envy’ between parties should be examined. If envy is excluded, then Judge will check the ‘special conditions/circumstances of act committed: For ex. strong anger, a strong fight that led to anger, or other things that may discharge from heavy accusation, like influence of drugs, alcohol etc, which are punished else, being examined with other criteria in these cases. Let’s note now: Also, from personal interest, fraud can be also produced in some cases, even circumstantial one, or vice versa, an act based on strong personal interest, may be a ‘’good alibi’’ of ‘covered concealed fraud’. This kind of fraud is met for ex. in cases of ‘murder after strong fight, for personal differences, having to do with personal interests’. Then in this case, an Experienced Judge, will undertake procedure to discuss and investigate all above factors, involved in a ‘criminal act’ to further detect fraud, if so, and determine punishment and rate of punishment, by measuring of course pros and cons in this case, as well as all possible sources of ‘direct fraud’. In such cases, we take as given or not, the previous relationship, that might justify a ‘possible-indirect’ fraud first and then identify, direct fraud if so…This and too much more per case of course… Now, to conclude here this small chapter of main introduction to fraud, we’ll say a few words on ‘fraud of necessity’: Fraud of necessity can be for ex : One person sets on fire a whole house, to take revenge of person X that resides in this house, but in this case, it happens that more persons are also inside, and however, he/she puts house on fire, by justifying it as act of necessity later…But in view of punishment of first ‘’objective substance of crime’=act of crime as such, the factor ‘necessity’ can be excluded, and least, but not last, Judge can easily talk on ‘indirect fraud’ in terms of criminal act here against ‘innocent people’, thus, unless ‘this necessity’ is duly justified, and proven, later after being verified, a mild Judge can accept this part of act as act of necessity, but actually this is rare in Law. in this case, and of course-to sum up-all cases of Penal Law, that involve any kind of fraud, are also subject to Jurisprudence, for type and height of punishment and adjudication in similar cases.

Category: Law

0 Term

Created by: KATRAT

Number of Blossarys: 1291

My Terms
Collected Terms

KATRAT hasn't added any terms to this blossary. Blossaries with five terms or more are featured in the blossary collections.

Add a term

Member comments


( You can type up to 200 characters )

Postita  
My other Blossarys

Gift is generally present, donation. Thus we have ...

Category: Law

By: KATRAT

It's a noun that means 'movement of hand' for ex. ...

Category: Law

By: KATRAT

General, the opposite of specific, thus we have ...

Category: Law

By: KATRAT

Gazette, is newspaper of British Government,

Category: Law

By: KATRAT