R v Valujevs [2014] EWCA Crim 2888

Facts

  • The defendants (gangmasters) managed the pay and expenses of Lithuanian workers.
  • They had control over the workers' wages, rent, and transport costs, despite lacking official financial authority or formal titles.
  • The gangmasters deducted excessive amounts from the workers' wages for rent and transport, reducing their actual earnings.
  • The workers were vulnerable and relied on the defendants for their basic financial needs.
  • The prosecution alleged that the defendants dishonestly abused their position to benefit themselves at the workers' expense.

Issues

  1. Whether a “position” under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 requires formal legal authority or includes informal control over another's financial interests.
  2. Whether the defendants' conduct amounted to dishonesty under the applicable legal test.
  3. Whether the defendants intended to benefit themselves or cause loss to the workers, as required by Section 4.
  4. How Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 differs from other fraud offenses, such as fraud by false representation or dishonest service obtainment.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that a “position” under Section 4 does not require a formal legal or financial role; actual control or influence can suffice.
  • The defendants’ management of the workers’ finances, despite lacking formal authority, was sufficient to establish the necessary position.
  • The conduct was found to be dishonest under the test (what the defendants knew and whether their actions were dishonest by ordinary standards).
  • The defendants’ intention to gain financially by overcharging for rent and transport was established, satisfying the gain or loss requirement under Section 4.
  • The court clarified the distinction between Section 4 and other fraud offenses in the Fraud Act 2006.

Legal Principles

  • Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 covers fraud by abuse of position, requiring proof of a position of trust or control, dishonest misuse of that position, and intent to gain or cause loss.
  • The term “position” is not limited to formal or legal authority; actual or de facto control may be sufficient.
  • The test for dishonesty involves first determining the defendant’s knowledge and then assessing dishonesty by the standards of ordinary people.
  • Section 4 is distinct from other types of fraud, as it focuses on pre-existing trust or control rather than false representations or dishonest obtaining of services.

Conclusion

R v Valujevs established that informal or practical control over another’s financial interests can amount to a “position” under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, clarified the elements of dishonesty and intent required for conviction, and distinguished this offense from related forms of 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