skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98917 Find in a Library
Title: Dishonesty in the Cheque and Credit Card Holders
Journal: Journal of Criminal Law  Volume:48  Issue:4  Dated:(1984)  Pages:406-413
Author(s): A Kewley
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 8
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: This paper examines British case law and expert legal opinion to determine when overdrawing a checking account or exceeding the credit limits of a credit card constitute criminal dishonesty.
Abstract: For a person to be guilty of an offense of dishonesty under the British 1968 Theft Act, the payee receiving a bad check or credit card must be deceived by the implied or expressed representation so that property or pecuniary advantage is obtained by the check or credit card user. The crucial test, adopted in cases such as R. v. Lamie, is whether the payee would have acted as he did if he had known that the defendant's representation was false. This is a crucial issue in check and credit card overdrafts, because the payee is protected regardless of deception, provided the condition of the contract with the bank or credit company have been met. In such cases, the payee is ensured of eventual payment, so that even knowledge of overdrafts or the exceeding of credit limits may not deter the payee from sealing the transaction. The jury must decide the issue of dishonesty on a subjective basis, although a judge may instruct it to make its decision according to the standards of reasonable and honest people. It is likely that the jury will not vote for conviction unless there is a clear and serious violation of standards of honesty. Fourteen footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Check fraud; Credit card fraud; United Kingdom (UK)
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.