R v Bingham [2013] EWCA Crim 823

Facts

  • The defendant created multiple fictitious online profiles, each with unique details and fabricated histories.
  • These false identities were used to establish relationships with targeted individuals for financial exploitation.
  • The defendant obtained private information and money from victims through these deceptive accounts.
  • The scheme included developing elaborate narratives to sustain the deception.
  • The deliberate planning and organization of the fraudulent operation were central to the court’s assessment.

Issues

  1. Whether the creation and use of multiple fabricated online identities to deceive victims falls within the ambit of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.
  2. What standard of intent and dishonesty is required to prove liability in cases involving online deception.
  3. How courts should assess and evidence intent in technologically complex scams utilizing digital platforms.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found that fabricating and operating fake digital identities for the purpose of deception satisfies the requirements of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, particularly section 2.
  • The court determined that presenting false online personas as genuine constitutes a dishonest representation.
  • Evidence such as digital communications, payment records, and victim statements was sufficient to demonstrate intent and dishonesty.
  • The ruling established that carefully documented digital evidence is critical to proving fraudulent intent in online deception cases.

Legal Principles

  • Fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, section 2, can be committed by creating and using false digital identities for dishonest gain or to cause loss.
  • Demonstrating the defendant’s dishonest state of mind and specific intention to secure benefit or inflict loss is essential for liability.
  • Comprehensive digital documentation, such as records of online activity and communications, is critical in establishing intent in internet-based fraud.
  • Traditional statutory provisions apply to novel forms of online deception, and legal standards must respond to technological change.

Conclusion

The decision in R v Bingham confirms that designing and deploying multiple fake online identities to perpetrate fraud is covered by existing statutory frameworks, specifically the Fraud Act 2006. The ruling highlights the importance of assessing intent and using digital evidence in prosecuting internet-based deception, setting lasting standards for the prosecution of online fraud.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal