## 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.


R v Valujevs [2014] EWCA Crim 2888