R v Beckett [2026] EWCA Crim 462 – S 993(1) CA 2006 – CPUTR.
- fraudulent trading – relevance of offending not charged – sentencing.
1) fraudulent purpose.
- dishonesty necessary element of fraud.
- can be fraud without deception.
- business fraudulent if acting beyond bounds of what ordinary, decent, people engaged in business regard as honest.
- fraudulent purpose can exist even if objective, such as sales, not achieved.
- misconduct may be evidence of fraudulent purpose, but not ingredient of fraudulent trading.
- proof of specific misconduct not required.
2) relevance of breaches of CPUTR to fraudulent trading.
- fraudulent trading not require proof of unfair trading practices.
- but, proof of such breaches may help determine whether company acted beyond what ordinary, decent, people engaged in business regard as honest.
3) “unfair commercial practices” can be appropriate general description for particular business practices.
4) industry standards are informed by CPUTR.
- relevant to D’s dishonesty whether D knew or believed business contravened legislation designed to catch sharp practices and rogue traders.
5) fraud sentencing guidelines relevant to fraudulent trading only by analogy.
- fraudulent trading covers wide spectrum of offending.
- court rarely assisted by examples of sentencing on different facts.
undefined: unpaid