R v Valujevs, [2014] EWCA Crim 2888

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Mina is an informal caregiver for Lane, who struggles with daily tasks due to physical disability. Mina assists Lane by managing certain financial tasks, including withdrawing cash and paying bills on Lane’s behalf. Although no formal written agreement was established, Lane entrusted Mina with unrestricted access to personal debit cards and bank details. Over time, Lane noticed irregular withdrawals that did not align with any household needs or expenses. A subsequent investigation revealed that Mina had used Lane’s funds to purchase luxury goods for personal gain.


Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the position element under section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 in this scenario?

Introduction

Fraud by abuse of position, as set out in Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, is a serious offense. This occurs when someone holds a role requiring them to protect another’s financial interests, then acts dishonestly in that role to benefit themselves or harm others. The law does not strictly define “position of trust,” leaving courts to determine its meaning. This rule aims to prevent people from misusing their authority over others’ money or assets. To prove this offense, prosecutors must show the role existed, it was misused dishonestly, and there was intent to create a benefit or harm.

The Meaning of "Position" in Fraud by Abuse of Position

The Court of Appeal in R v Valujevs decided that a “position” under Section 4 does not require formal legal authority. The gangmasters in Valujevs managed Lithuanian workers’ pay and costs without official financial responsibility. Their control over vulnerable workers established a qualifying “position.” The court focused on actual control over formal titles.

Dishonesty and Abuse of Position

Dishonesty remains key to proving this offense. The test from Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 has two steps: first, determining what the defendant knew, then deciding if their actions were dishonest by ordinary standards. In Valujevs, the gangmasters unfairly reduced workers’ wages for rent and transport costs. Jurors found this dishonest, meeting the legal test.

Intention to Gain or Cause Loss

Section 4 requires proof that the defendant intended to benefit themselves or others, or harm someone financially. This applies to money or property, whether kept temporarily or permanently. In Valujevs, the gangmasters gained by overcharging workers for basic needs, directly lowering their earnings. This satisfied the law’s requirements for intent.

Differences Between Section 4 and Other Fraud Offenses

Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 has a distinct role. While similar to fraud by false representation (Section 2) or dishonest service obtainment (Section 11), important differences exist. Section 4 applies when trust or control is already present, without requiring lies (Section 2) or focusing only on services (Section 11). R v Valujevs demonstrates how Section 4 addresses misuse of power, even without formal agreements.

The Importance of R v Valujevs

R v Valujevs clarifies Section 4. It confirms that “position” includes informal control, not just legal roles. This protects vulnerable people from exploitation by those with power, regardless of official titles. The ruling emphasizes evaluating actual circumstances when deciding if a “position” exists. This case provides a clear example for future fraud-by-position cases, improving tools against financial abuse.

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.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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