header-logo header-logo

Fraud

16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Stevenson and another v Singh and others [2012] EWHC 2880 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 76 (Nov)

In order to be liable as a conspirator participating in a conspiracy to use unlawful means, a party had to at least be aware of the means intended to be used, aware that the use of those means would be unlawful and agree to the use of those means. If the party in question had not been aware of the means intended to be used, or not aware that the use of those means would be unlawful, it could not be said that that party was a party to a combination to use unlawful means. It would rarely, if ever, be the case that clear evidence of an agreement or combination would be put before the court. Proof of a conspiracy was almost always going to depend upon drawing inferences from such evidence as was available, what were often referred to as “the over acts” performed pursuant to the alleged conspiracy. In order to establish liability for dishonestly assisting a party

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll