Guide section
The legal test for dishonesty
Most CIFAS marker types require evidence of dishonesty or intent. The current legal test for dishonesty was established in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67. The test asks: was the conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?
This is an objective test. It does not matter whether the person realised their conduct was dishonest. What matters is whether ordinary decent people would consider it dishonest given all the circumstances.
Guide section
What is NOT dishonesty
- Genuine mistakes, providing incorrect information by accident is not fraud
- Poor judgement, making a bad decision is not the same as acting dishonestly
- Negligence, failing to check something is not dishonesty
- Naivety, being unaware that activity was suspicious is not dishonesty
- Civil disputes, disagreements about contracts, ownership, or money owed are not fraud
- Vulnerability, acting under pressure, coercion, or exploitation is not dishonesty
Guide section
Why this matters for complaints
Many CIFAS markers are filed in situations where the conduct was a mistake, poor judgement, or a civil dispute, not genuine dishonesty. If the institution cannot demonstrate that the conduct meets the legal standard for dishonesty, the marker is recording inaccurate personal data and should be removed.
The question to ask
Would ordinary decent people, knowing all the circumstances, consider this conduct dishonest? If the answer is not a clear yes, the marker is challengeable.
Guide section
How dishonesty connects to CIFAS case types
Most CIFAS case types require dishonesty or a knowing intent to commit fraud. In a Misuse of Facility case, the question is not simply whether funds moved through the account but whether the account holder knew about and was complicit in the misuse. An unwitting recipient of fraud proceeds is not dishonest. A person deceived into forwarding funds is not dishonest. A person coerced or exploited is not dishonest.
The Ivey test is objective. It asks what a reasonable person would have understood given the same facts. If the account holder genuinely did not know the funds were suspicious, ordinary decent people would not consider the conduct dishonest. That is the gap the institution must close with evidence, and often cannot.