fraud

[wilhelmina]

if you give someone power of attorney can they carry on your business without your knowledge or without ever consulting you?

[themas]

It depends on the terms of the power of attorney. If it is unrestricted and the attorney has power to enter into contracts, make payments etc. then yes - they probably can do what you say. BUT your post is headed Fraud. Nothing gives the attorney the right to engage in fraud, which is a criminal offence. If this is suspected the donor (assuming they are of sound mind) should revoke the power of attorney if they wish, and demand a full accounting from the attorney of his/her actions. All attorneys should keep the monies they are handling in that capacity separate from their own monies and be able to account for what has happened to the money.

[wilhelmina]

we have revoked that power of attorney....3 years ago and still no money has come our way! in fact there is NO money in the account that we left in both our names!

[MustafaTickl]

Fraud is not a criminal offence.

[THECORBYLOON]

The Fraud Act 2006 appears to contradict that view.

[Kingsway]

Mustafa is correct.

[seatrout]

There is no specific criminal offence of fraud but the accepted defination of fraud is obtaining property by deception and that is a criminal offence. There are a number of potential offences here and you should report the matter to the Police. A power of attorney is always revocable by the person who gives the power and can only be execised lawfully if the person who has the power is acting in the interests of the giver. There may be civil or criminal liability here so either go the Police or consult a solicitor

[themas]

If the attorney has committed fraud, then he/she has committed a criminal offence. The exact wording of the legislation is unimportant. If you suspect this, you should involve the police, but to attempt to recover your money you would probably need to initiate a civil action - for which you need a solicitor. If you have left this for 3 years there could be queries about the lengthy delay, and there is a time limit for civil claims -others may be able to advise on what it is.

[MustafaTickl]

The exact wording of the alleged offence is vitally important. There is no criminal offence of fraud, so it is necessary to be absolutely specific about what is alleged. Personally I think that both the question and wilhelmina and the themas answers are barmy and that the attorney has acted honestly.

[MustafaTickl]

But there is no criminal offence of fraud. None at all. The exact wording of whatever is alleged is vitally important. If you cannot point exactly to the alleged breach of legislation then no offence of any sort has been committed. None. Can you please explain what on earth you are talking about, themas?

[Kingsway]

But there is no criminal offence of fraud. None whatsoever. The exact wording of the alleged breach of legislation is vitally important, it is the heart of the matter. If you are unable to state within the legalities precisely which rule has been breached, then no legal offence of any sort has been committed. None whatsoever. Could you most kindly explain what you are talking about, themas?

[THECORBYLOON]

The Fraud Act 2006 states

"1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are-

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position)."

Can you explain to me why there is no crimminal offence of fraud then?

[Kingsway]

There is nothing in your reply that contradicts in any way at all the statement above made by myself and others that there is no criminal offence of fraud. If you do not comprehend this then you must conduct your own research.

[THECORBYLOON]

The first sentence sates "A person is guilty of fraud if..."

If a person can be guilty of fraud, does it not follow that fraud is an offence?

Rather than tell me to conduct ma own research why not explain yir assertion?

[Gmcd01]

I think what the above points are trying to say is that fraud would then become s2(a) Fraud by Misrep. I think.