Dishonesty and Intent in Law

The concepts of dishonesty and intent are central to fraud law in the UK. They determine whether conduct is fraudulent — and by extension, whether a CIFAS marker is justified.

Although CIFAS markers are not criminal convictions, they are based on fraud-related conduct. This means that markers should only be applied where there is evidence of dishonesty or an intention to commit fraud.

Dishonesty in Law #

The leading case on dishonesty is Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67. The Supreme Court clarified that dishonesty should be assessed in two steps:

1. What was the individual’s actual state of knowledge or belief?
   • The court must consider what the person knew or believed at the time, even if their belief was unreasonable.
2. Was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
   • Once the belief is established, the question becomes whether ordinary people would regard the conduct as dishonest.

This test focuses on objective dishonesty, judged against community standards, not the individual’s own moral code.

Intent in Fraud Cases #

The Fraud Act 2006 requires an intention to make a gain or cause a loss through false representation, failure to disclose, or abuse of position. Without intent, fraud is not made out.

For example:

• Submitting altered documents knowingly = intent to deceive.
• Submitting inaccurate documents by mistake = no intent.

Relevance to CIFAS Markers #

For a CIFAS marker to be fair:

• The conduct must show elements of dishonesty or intent to defraud.
• Innocent errors, misunderstandings, or coerced actions should not result in a marker.

In R v Andrewes [2022] UKSC 24, the Supreme Court held that dishonesty had to be balanced against proportionality. Even where fraud was proven, penalties should not go beyond what was necessary. This principle also applies to CIFAS markers, which can have disproportionate consequences.

Why This Matters for Challenges #

If a marker was filed against you:

• Ask whether the evidence actually shows dishonesty, or just error.
• Ask whether there was genuine intent to gain or cause loss.
• If dishonesty or intent is missing, the marker may be unfair, disproportionate, and open to removal.

Key Takeaway #

Dishonesty and intent are the cornerstones of fraud law. Without them, there is no fraud — and no lawful basis for a CIFAS marker.