Hubbry Logo
Cheating (law)Cheating (law)Main
Open search
Cheating (law)
Community hub
Cheating (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cheating (law)
Cheating (law)
Cheating (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

At law, cheating is a specific criminal offence relating to property.

Historically, to cheat was to commit a misdemeanour at common law (called "summary offense" in some jurisdictions). However, in most jurisdictions, the offence has now been codified into statute.[1]

In most cases the codified statutory form of cheating and the original common law offence are very similar, but there can be differences. For example, under English law it was held in R v Sinclair[2] that "[t]o cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the prejudice of another person's proprietary right." However, at common law a great deal of authority suggested that there had to be contrivance, such that the public were likely to be deceived and that "common prudence and caution are not sufficient security against a person being defrauded thereby".[3]

Examples of cheating upheld by the courts have included fraudulently pretending to have power to discharge a soldier,[4] using false weights or measures,[5] and playing with false dice.[6]

Definition

[edit]

In relation to the common law offence, no judicial definition of the offence was ever laid down, but the description of the offence set down in Stephen's Criminal Digest[7][8] is regarded as fairly comprehensive, and is cited as an authoritative definition by Stroud's Judicial Dictionary.

Every one commits the misdemeanour called cheating who fraudulently obtains the property of another by any deceitful practice not amounting to felony, which practice is of such a nature that it directly affects, or may directly affect, the public at large. But it is not cheating, within the meaning of this article, to deceive any person in any contract or private dealing by lies, unaccompanied by such practices as aforesaid.[9]

Other statutory uses

[edit]

A number of jurisdictions also have statutory offences relating to cheating in gambling. See for example section 42(3) of the Gambling Act 2005.

England and Wales

[edit]

The common law offence of cheating was abolished, except as regards offences relating to the public revenue, by section 32(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.

Cheating the public revenue

[edit]

William Harkins said that "all frauds affecting the Crown and public at large are indictable as cheats at common law".[10] This passage was cited in R v Mulligan.[11]

Prosecutions under the common law are still pursued in England and can result in heavy sentences – significantly in excess of the maximum available to the courts for corresponding statutory offences.[12]

The following cases are also relevant:

Sentence

[edit]

See R v Regan,[17] Attorney General's References (Nos. 88, 89, 90 and 91 of 2006), and R v Meehan and others.[18][further explanation needed]

Cheating at play

[edit]

This offence was formally created by section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845. The current English legislation on cheating in betting is found in s. 42 Gambling Act 2005.

Going equipped for cheat

[edit]

In section 25 of the Theft Act 1968, the word "cheat" meant an offence under section 15 of that Act.[19] The said section 15 created the offence of obtaining property by deception. The Fraud Act 2006 replaced these offences with new ones using different terminology.

References and notes

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cheating (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In law, cheating is a criminal offense involving deceitful practices aimed at defrauding another person or the of or a known right through some artful device or misleading contrivance, beyond mere verbal falsehoods. Historically, at , it was classified as a punishable by fine or imprisonment, distinct from felonies like , and applied primarily to harms such as using false weights, selling adulterated goods, or employing rigged tools, while private deceptions were typically addressed through civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution. This distinction reflected the 's emphasis on protecting societal interests over individual gullibility, as articulated in early judicial rulings that declined to criminalize mere "making a fool of another." In contemporary legal systems derived from , the standalone offense of cheating has been largely abolished or integrated into broader statutory frameworks addressing and dishonesty. For instance, in , the of cheating was eliminated by the , with its elements preserved only for the specific offense of cheating the public revenue—a crime involving deliberate deception to evade taxes or duties, triable on and carrying severe penalties. Most general cheating-like conduct now falls under the , which criminalizes dishonest false representations, failures to disclose information, or abuses of position intended to make gains or cause losses, with maximum sentences of 10 years' imprisonment on conviction. In the United States, cheating is not a uniform federal offense but appears in state statutes as "gross fraud or cheat at ," often classified as a third-degree , such as under law, where it encompasses willful deceptions to obtain property unlawfully. Jurisdictions outside the tradition maintain as a distinct with codified definitions. In , under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replacing the ), occurs when a , by , fraudulently or dishonestly induces another to deliver , to its retention, or perform an act causing or , punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment depending on the severity. These variations highlight 's core elements—intentional , fraudulent inducement, and resultant —while adapting to local legal priorities, from protecting public welfare to safeguarding economic transactions.

Definition and Historical Context

In , constitutes a involving the fraudulent of another person to gain an advantage or cause loss, particularly where such impacts the rather than constituting mere private . According to Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law (1887), the offense is precisely articulated as follows: "Every one commits the misdemeanour called , who fraudulently obtains the property of another by any deceitful practice not amounting to , which directly affects or may directly affect the at large." This definition emphasizes that simple lies or unaccompanied by tangible deceitful practices do not suffice, as illustrated by examples such as selling goods by false weights or measures, or affixing forged seals to merchandise to mislead buyers. No single judicial definition of cheating has been authoritatively established through , leading courts and legal scholars to rely on textual authorities like Stephen's Digest. The offense's roots lie in precedents, such as those from Hawkins' Pleas of the (1716–21), which describe cheating as deceitful practices contrary to common honesty aimed at defrauding another of a known right through artful devices. This reliance on digest definitions highlights the offense's evolution from broader concepts without a codified judicial gloss. The core elements of cheating as a criminal offense include fraudulent (dolus malus), the use of deceitful or artful practices to obtain or something of value, and a dimension that elevates the act beyond individual harm. Unlike civil wrongs such as private deceit or , which may be remedied through claims without criminal sanctions, cheating demands a threshold of impact—such as interference with collection, market , or communal trust—to trigger criminal liability, distinguishing it as an indictable against the state rather than a mere interpersonal dispute. This element ensures that only deceptions with broader societal consequences, like those undermining or fairness, fall within the offense's scope.

Historical Development

The offense of cheating emerged in during the of the , recognized as a for deceitful practices that caused harm without fitting neatly into existing categories like or . It addressed "artful devices" or intended to defraud individuals or the public, often punished by fines, imprisonment, or , distinguishing it from more severe felonies. Early cases, such as those documented in 16th-century records, focused on trade frauds like using false weights or selling adulterated goods, reflecting broader concerns over economic integrity in an expanding . Key milestones in the 18th and 19th centuries refined the offense, with cases like R v Govers (1755) clarifying its scope to include intentional deception without actual loss. The Gaming Act 1845 specifically targeted cheating at play, making it punishable as a equivalent to obtaining money by , amid rising concerns over frauds. By the , the offense had evolved to encompass broader deceptions, but the abolished the general crime of cheating, preserving it only for offenses against the public revenue, such as . The transition to statutory frameworks culminated in the , which subsumed remnants of the cheating offense—particularly deception-based elements—into a unified provision, focusing on dishonest false representations, failure to disclose information, or abuse of position. This reform addressed inconsistencies in prior laws like the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978, creating a more adaptable tool for prosecuting modern deceit. Through British colonialism, the English common law concept of cheating influenced jurisdictions such as the , , and other colonies, where it was adopted and adapted into local codes.

Cheating in English Law

Cheating the Public Revenue

Cheating the public revenue is a in that encompasses any dishonest act or omission by an individual or entity intended to prejudice His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), thereby depriving the public purse of funds lawfully due, such as through (VAT) evasion or failure to declare income. The offence requires proof of dishonesty, assessed under the test from Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords UKSC 67, where the defendant's knowledge or belief is considered against whether ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people would deem the conduct dishonest. It is a conduct-based offence, meaning the prosecution need not demonstrate actual loss to the Revenue, only the potential prejudice resulting from the deceitful conduct. This offence survived the comprehensive reforms of the , which abolished the broader of under section 32(1)(a) but expressly preserved cheating the public revenue as an indictable misdemeanour triable only on . The preservation reflects its targeted application to fiscal deception against the state, distinguishing it from general fraud now governed by statutes like the Fraud Act 2006. Examples include submitting false tax returns, failing to register for VAT when required, or deliberately omitting to disclose or assets, all of which constitute the dishonest evasion or avoidance of liabilities. Notable prosecutions illustrate the offence's application to large-scale frauds. In 2012, Dilawar Ravjani was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment as the ringleader of a £176 million VAT fraud involving the reselling of mobile phones across borders to reclaim undue VAT refunds, convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. Other cases involve simpler omissions, such as a business owner's failure to register for VAT leading to undeclared sales or an individual's non-disclosure of offshore income, both resulting in convictions for prejudicing HMRC. Prosecutions for cheating the are typically initiated following investigations by HMRC, which gathers of dishonest conduct, with cases then referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for where there is sufficient and . The CPS applies its full code test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors to ensure viability, emphasizing the offence's role in safeguarding public funds from deliberate deception. In English law, cheating at play in the context of gambling refers to the use of deceit or unlawful devices to gain an unfair advantage during games or wagers. This offense originated under section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845, which equated such cheating with obtaining money by false pretences and imposed penalties including up to two years' imprisonment. The provision was repealed and modernized by section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, which criminalizes cheating at gambling by defining it as any act that improves one's chances of winning or gaining a prize, or prejudices another's chances, in circumstances where another participant is involved. Notably, for non-players such as operators or assistants, the offense does not require proof of intent to gain personally or cause loss to another, broadening its application to enablers. A related offense is "going equipped for cheat," established under section 25(1) of the , which prohibits possessing any article outside one's place of abode for use in connection with a , including in contexts. This includes tools like marked cards, weighted dice, or electronic devices intended to manipulate outcomes. While the introduced section 6 for possessing articles for use in frauds—overlapping in some deceptive scenarios—section 25 remains applicable and referenced for preparatory acts in cheating, with penalties up to three years' imprisonment on . Common examples of these offenses include using marked cards to identify high-value hands in casino poker or , or deploying hidden devices to predict outcomes, both of which constitute direct interference with fair play. In practice, such acts have led to prosecutions, as discussed in the civil case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords UKSC 67 involving edge-sorting, where the held that the technique constituted cheating under section 42 even without subjective dishonesty on the part of the player. Penalties for cheating at play under the Gambling Act 2005 include up to two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on , or up to 51 weeks and a level 5 fine on summary , emphasizing deterrence against undermining integrity. Enforcement of these offenses in is primarily handled by , often in coordination with the , which investigates suspicious activities in licensed premises and refers criminal matters for prosecution. The Commission has pursued cases involving inside information misuse, such as betting on dates with non-public knowledge, resulting in charges under section 42. This collaborative approach ensures that both individual cheats and facilitators face accountability, protecting the regulated sector.

Cheating in Other Jurisdictions

United States

In the , legal concepts of cheating are typically addressed through , , and specific statutes rather than a unified national offense, with approaches varying between federal and state laws. At the federal level, cheating schemes, particularly those involving interstate elements, are prosecuted under mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) statutes, which target any scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain or property by , representations, or promises executed via mail, wires, or other interstate communications. These provisions carry penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment, or 30 years if affecting a , and have been applied to diverse cheating activities, including financial scams and manipulations. Post-2020, federal enforcement has intensified against cheating under these fraud statutes, reflecting the growth of digital betting platforms. A notable example is the October 2025 FBI-led operation, which resulted in indictments of over 30 individuals, including NBA players and , for participating in mafia-linked rigged poker games and illegal sports betting schemes that defrauded victims of millions through wire fraud conspiracies. These cases highlight how wire fraud prosecutions target tactics like insider betting and rigged outcomes in online environments, often tied to . State laws provide additional frameworks for cheating, often specifying it in contexts like property deception or personal misconduct, with penalties scaled by severity. In Florida, for instance, Statute § 817.29 explicitly criminalizes "cheating" as any gross fraud or cheat recognized at common law, classifying it as a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. This statute preserves common law elements of deceitful conduct to wrongfully obtain value, distinguishing it from general theft provisions.

India

In Indian law, cheating is codified as a distinct criminal offense under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the , 1860, effective July 1, 2024. Section 318 defines cheating as whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, or property. These provisions, influenced by British , emphasize deception leading to wrongful gain or loss. The essential elements of cheating include fraudulent or dishonest by the accused, inducement of the victim to deliver , provide , or perform an act or omission, and resultant or , all rooted in dishonest present at the of the transaction. Dishonest intention, as defined under Section 2(10) of the BNS (corresponding to former Section 24 of the IPC), involves acting with the intent to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. This distinguishes cheating from a mere , which is a civil matter arising from non-performance or failure to fulfill obligations without initial fraudulent intent; criminal liability under cheating requires proof of premeditated deceit from the outset, not subsequent disappointment in expectations. For instance, promising to deliver goods with no intention of doing so constitutes cheating, whereas a genuine but failed due to unforeseen circumstances does not. The basic offense of cheating under Section 318(2) is punishable with of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. An aggravated form applies under Section 318(4) when the dishonestly induces delivery of or alteration/destruction of a valuable , punishable with of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and liability to fine. This section is frequently invoked in cyber fraud cases, such as online scams involving to obtain financial transfers or , reflecting the adaptability of the offense to modern digital deceptions. Enforcement of cheating offenses falls under state police jurisdiction, with investigations and prosecutions handled through local criminal courts. The (NCRB) data indicates a high volume of such cases, with approximately 180,000 cases of , , and registered in 2023, underscoring the prevalence of these offenses amid rising economic and cyber-related frauds.

Modern Equivalents and Enforcement

Replacement by Fraud Statutes

In many jurisdictions, traditional offenses of cheating—often rooted in or narrow statutory provisions—have been largely subsumed or replaced by broader statutes designed to address modern forms of dishonest conduct more effectively. These reforms aim to simplify prosecutions by focusing on the dishonest act itself rather than requiring proof of specific outcomes like permanent deprivation of property. In the , the marked a significant shift by repealing the deception offenses under the (sections 15, 15A, 16) and Theft Act 1978 (sections 1, 2), which had previously covered many scenarios, and introducing a general offense of under section 1. The core provision, by false representation in section 2, criminalizes any dishonest representation (including omissions or non-verbal conduct) made with intent to gain or cause loss, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment on . This consolidation eliminated the complexities of older laws, enabling prosecutions for evolving s such as those involving digital platforms, with enforcement adapting post-2012 to target cyber-enabled s through enhanced investigative tools and . The Act's impact has been substantial, broadening the scope to capture conduct previously prosecuted as while streamlining legal processes. Similar trends appear in other jurisdictions. In , federal and state criminal codes have consolidated cheating-like offenses into general provisions; for instance, section 408C of Queensland's 1899 defines as dishonest deception to obtain a benefit or cause detriment, replacing disparate older statutes on by trick or . At the federal level, Division 134 of the Act 1995 (Cth) similarly unifies dishonesty offenses, including those involving deception, to address contemporary without the limitations of historical cheating categories. In , section 380 of the provides a comprehensive offense encompassing "deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means," which superseded narrower provisions under prior law, adapting to include non-deceptive dishonest acts and modern digital cheating. While these criminal reforms emphasize unified fraud frameworks, civil law retains remedies for cheating-like behavior through the , where intentional misrepresentations causing foreseeable economic loss can result in compensatory damages. The primary focus, however, lies in the criminal domain, where such statutory replacements have facilitated more responsive enforcement against globalized and technology-driven .

Penalties and Sentencing

In , the offense of cheating the public revenue carries a maximum penalty of , though sentencing guidelines typically result in custodial terms ranging from 3 to 17 years depending on and caused. For high cases involving significant , such as losses exceeding £50 million to , the starting point is 12 years' custody with a range of 10 to 17 years. Under the , cheating-related fraud offenses, such as fraud by false representation, have a maximum of 10 years' ; the Sentencing Council's guidelines assess (high, medium, or lesser) and (based on financial loss), recommending starting points of up to 7 years' custody for high and substantial (e.g., losses over £500,000), with ranges extending to 8 years. Fines, restitution, and disqualification from directorships are also common, scaled to the offense's severity. In the United States, penalties for cheating offenses, often prosecuted as fraud, vary between federal and state jurisdictions, with federal sentences frequently enhanced for organized elements. At the federal level, wire fraud or mail fraud statutes under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 1343 carry up to 20 years' imprisonment, escalating to 30 years if financial institutions are affected or if the scheme involves disaster relief. For involvement in organized crime, enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (e.g., §2S1.1 for money laundering in structured schemes) or RICO statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1961) can add levels, increasing base sentences by 2 to 18 levels based on loss amount and leadership role, potentially resulting in decades of incarceration. State laws differ; for example, in Florida, cheating as gross fraud under Statute § 817.29 is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Courts consider aggravating factors like victim vulnerability and scheme sophistication in determining sentences. In , Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing the ), prescribes punishment for cheating by dishonestly inducing delivery of property as for up to seven years, along with a fine; the term can be rigorous imprisonment, and courts factor in the amount defrauded, intent, and harm caused when imposing sentences. For instance, larger sums or organized deception often lead to maximum terms near 7 years plus substantial fines for restitution. Under the (as amended), cyber-cheating under Section 66D carries up to 3 years' imprisonment and a fine up to ₹1 , but prosecutions frequently invoke Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for enhanced penalties in digital fraud cases. Post-2020, penalties for cyber-cheating have seen enforcement intensification and legislative adjustments across jurisdictions to address rising online scams. In the UK, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced a "failure to prevent fraud" offense with unlimited fines for organizations, alongside stricter guidelines for individual cyber-fraud under existing laws. In the US, proposed amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) aim to increase penalties to 20 years for repeat cyber offenses, while federal priorities emphasize harsher sentences for organized cyber schemes via DOJ guidelines. India reported a surge in cyber fraud cases, prompting the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replacing IPC) to maintain 7-year maximums under Section 318 for cheating while enhancing fines and cyber-specific probes. International cooperation has bolstered enforcement through treaties like the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which mandates mutual legal assistance and extradition for cross-border fraud, ratified by 191 parties to facilitate joint investigations into global cheating networks.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kennys-outlines-of-criminal-law/cheats-punishable-at-common-law/DF18D5234CA717A318CAC92E25FD7950
  2. https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/civil-fraud/articles/conspiracy-to-defraud-and-conspiracy-to-cheat/
  3. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/cheating-the-public-revenue
  4. https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/fraud-act-2006
  5. https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xlvi/chapter-817/part-i/section-817-29/
  6. https://devgan.in/bns/section/318/
  7. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/A_digest_of_the_criminal_law_%28crimes_and_punishments%29_%28IA_digestofcriminal00step%29.pdf
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/honest-cheat-a-timely-history-of-cheating-and-fraud-following-ivey-v-genting-casinos-uk-ltd-ta-crockfords-2017-uksc-67/05BAC39684734C56F79ACE0147714415
  9. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9d56/f4f7df0a174d9bef95bf42f35859d15b399d.pdf
  10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/32
  11. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0022.html
  12. https://academic.oup.com/book/5375/chapter/148174402
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jul/08/carousel-tax-fraud-mobile-phones
  14. https://www.taxwatchuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The_tax_fraud_gap_Sep_21.pdf
  15. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/six-people-sentenced-part-ps20-million-fraud-against-taxpayer
  16. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/8-9/109/section/17
  17. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42
  18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/25
  19. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/section-42-of-the-gambling-act-2005
  20. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1341&num=0&edition=prelim
  21. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1343&num=0&edition=prelim
  22. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46695228/sources-terry-rozier-arrested-part-gambling-inquiry
  23. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77zndkx5kpo
  24. https://www.pokernews.com/news/2025/10/fbi-high-tech-cheating-scheme-poker-games-nba-coaches-mafia-49919.htm
  25. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0817/Sections/0817.29.html
  26. https://blog.ipleaders.in/cheating-a-criminal-offence-under-the-indian-penal-code/
  27. https://numenlaw.com/a-study-of-the-essential-ingredients-of-the-offence-of-cheating.php
  28. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-&-indian-penal-code/cheating
  29. https://elplaw.in/leadership/thin-line-of-difference-between-breach-of-contract-and-cheating/
  30. https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/section-420-ipc-everything-you-need-know/
  31. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/offence-of-cheating
  32. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/corruption-cases-decline-1-7-cybercrimes-rise-31-ncrb/articleshow/124245046.cms
  33. https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/expert-insights/litigation--dispute-resolution/2022/taking-aim-the-fraud-act-2006-in-2022/
  34. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-380.html
  35. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/the-tort-of-deceit
  36. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html
  37. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=P.C.186045&sectionId=55976&sectionno=66D&orderno=67
  38. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.