![]() (Incidentally, lawyers are also required to treat fraud differently: pursuant to English regulations, they are not allowed to allege fraud unless they are independently satisfied that there is material that justifies a fraud allegation.) Put another way: the court assumes that most people are not fraudsters. The reasoning for this was that, in simple terms, fraud and dishonesty are serious allegations and in the court's view most people are not serious wrongdoers. In 2010, in Fiona Trust v Privalov 1 the court indicated that claimants who allege fraud and dishonesty need to provide clearer and more cogent evidence than they need to do for most other torts (such as negligence). On the other hand, some claimants try to plead fraud claims on insufficient evidence, so as to put pressure on defendants to settle.For example, some claimants think that a professional services defendant may be more likely to settle a fraud claim than a straightforward negligence claim.Whilst this is often incorrect, it is still a tactic that is sometimes used and the courts generally try to discourage this. ![]() In the vast majority of cases, the victim will not know the full facts: the nature of fraud means that fraudsters hide facts from their victims and/or deceive them.Therefore, when first preparing their case, claimants often have to rely on some facts, but ask the court to infer certain other facts from available evidence.However, fraud litigation has certain characteristics that makes it less straightforward: ![]() For example, it may be obvious in a contract claim whether someone has performed or breached a contract. In some cases, this is an easy standard to understand. This means, the claimant has to show that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed a fraud. However, the standard of proof in civil fraud claims is the same as in all other civil claims: the balance of probabilities. ![]() In England, in criminal trials the prosecution has to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”. In Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Ors v Arkhangelsky & Ors EWCA Civ 408, the English Court examined the standard of proof in civil fraud claims. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |