BACK

12 Jun 2023

When you run a business, the last thing you want is an accusation of fraud on your record.

As you can imagine, accusations of fraud can have serious consequences, including fines, imprisonment, and damage to one’s reputation and career prospects. For this reason, it is important for those facing fraud charges to understand their legal options and potential defences.

After all, in our experience, fraud is usually a case of a mistake made on tax returns, so it is not worth losing your business over!

When you call our team at ABV Solicitors, our fraud solicitor will break down your charges and assess the severity, as well as begin building your defences. We will work with you to make sense of the charges, and, of course, we will also work to have them reduced.

So, in this article, our fraud solicitor will explore some of the most common defences against accusations of fraud that we have used in the past, allowing you to see what it is that we can do for you.

Lack of Intent

One of the most common defences against accusations that our fraud solicitor will use is lack of intent. This defence argues that the accused did not intend to commit fraud, but rather made a mistake or error in judgement. For example, if an individual made a false statement on a financial document due to a misunderstanding or mistake, they may be able to argue that they did not have the intent to commit fraud.

Duress

Another common defence against fraud charges is duress. This defence argues that the accused was forced to commit the fraudulent act under threat of harm or violence. For example, if an individual was threatened with physical harm unless they signed a false financial document, they may be able to argue that they were acting under duress and, therefore, should not be held responsible for the fraudulent act.

Mistake

Similar to lack of intent, the mistake defence argues that the accused made an error or mistake that led to the committing of the fraudulent act. For example, if an individual accidentally signed a document that contained false information, they may be able to argue that they made a mistake and did not intend to commit fraud.

Insanity

Another defence against fraud charges is insanity. This defence argues that the accused was not mentally capable of understanding the nature of their actions at the time the fraudulent act was committed. For example, if an individual suffered from a mental illness that prevented them from understanding the consequences of their actions, they may be able to argue that they were legally insane at the time of the fraudulent act.

Entrapment

Entrapment is a defence that argues that the accused was induced or coerced into committing the fraudulent act by law enforcement officials. For example, if an individual was encouraged or pressured by law enforcement officials to commit a fraudulent act that they would not have otherwise committed, they may be able to argue that they were entrapped and cannot be held responsible for the alleged fraudulent act.