## 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.


R v Bingham [2013] EWCA Crim 823