The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given Royal Assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.

The Fraud Act 2006 should be read in conjunction with the The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

FRAUD ACT 2006

Section 4    -    Fraud by abuse of position  [such as a planning or police officer]

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

PURPOSE

The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the Theft Act 1978. These offences attracted much criticism for their complexity and difficulty in proving at court. Much of the Theft Act 1978 has been repealed, however, the offence of making off without payment, defined under section 3 has not been affected.

1. "Fraud by false representation" is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.

2. "Fraud by failing to disclose information" is defined by Section 3 of the Act as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.

3. "Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.

NCSC ROYAL OPENING - Her Majesty The Queen opened the NCSC on the 17th of February 2017. There are several agencies in the UK that are supposed to tackle fraud, cyber crime, drugs, sex trafficking and money laundering, but when you ask any one of them to take a look at corruption in Wealden-land, they don't appear too anxious to open a case file. It's more a case of pass the buck .... and keep passing it ... until the complainant fades away. Sorry to have to report this to you Your Majesty, but it is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help me God.

GAIN AND LOSS

A "gain" or a "loss" is defined to consist only of a gain or a loss in money or property (including intangible property), but could be temporary or permanent. A "gain" could be construed as gaining by keeping their existing possessions, not just by obtaining new ones, and loss included losses of expected acquisitions, as well as losses of already-held property.

The Act will establish two "supporting" offences, these being the possession of articles for use in frauds (Section 6) and the making or supplying of articles for use in frauds (Section 7).

DAVID WHIBLEY - Is still working for Wealden District Council, taking photographs and feeding them to his corrupt bosses in Wealden's legal department, reporting to the controlling mind of Charlie Lant.

The middle picture was taken over 10 years ago when Whibley attempted to enter the BushyWood animal sanctuary illegally. Nelson Kruschandl snapped this beauty as he challenged the right of Wealden's storm troopers to be on a site near Hailsham. Kruschandl asked to see their authorisation from the Area South planning committee, on pain of citizens arrest. Whibley could not provide that authority making the site visit unlawful - when 'Whibbers' beat a hasty retreat.

F.A.O. David Whibley                                                                            RECORDED FAX & POST
Planning & Enforcement Dept.
Wealden District Council 
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham
East Sussex, BN27 2AX
                                                                                                            21 February 2017

Dear Sirs,

MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE – FORMAL COMPLAINT

I write with reference to my letter dated the 9th of December 2016, not having received a reply to the pressing matter of correct data entry, and bearing in mind the voracity of your letter of the 9th December 2016 setting the scene for urgent action.

Apart from your Council’s holding letter dated the 15th of December 2016, there has been nothing further from you for in excess of 73 days or well over 10 weeks. The delay has given you ample opportunity to seek high-level legal advice (as is your MO concerning myself) and go to committee several times over. Your Council is required to respond in 3 working days and give a substantive reply within 21 days to comply with the Citizens Charter. I was assured that you would deal with this matter in December 2016 by the 29th.

In that you are required to act with due diligence and are threatening action with serious costs consequences, loss of opportunity and more, I should firstly like you to confirm that you were the author of these letters and not merely the officer picked to front for your Council?

If that is not the case and the writer is Kelvin Williams, Douglas Moss or perhaps a person in your legal department, such as Trevor Scott or Trevor Abbott, I believe that the authorities will need to know should the illegality identified persist. Who is the controlling mind hiding behind the corporate veil?

Secondly, and most importantly, if I do not hear from you that you have now seen the Local Land Charges Register and can confirm:

1. That the register has been amended to show that the Old Steam House is the original generating building as per the Report of Archaeology South East, or 

2. That the register has not been amended to correctly state the facts as to the history of the site as per the Report of Archaeology South East dated the 29th of September 1999, now on record at East Sussex County Council with the County Archaeologist.

Then I must assume from your silence (being an admission as to the facts and not wanting to come straight out and admit wrongdoing) that your Council is guilty of Fraud in maintaining a register that is defective with the intention of causing financial harm to all those with an interest in the property – and thus, potentially a gain for all those with competing interests in the village neighbourhood, or other property developer.

If I do not hear from you as to the above extremely urgent matter within the next 10 working days, after consideration of the already 10-week plus delays in reply, you will leave me with no alternative but to take up the matter with the proper authorities with a view to seeking a full investigation of this particularly repugnant example of institutionalised discrimination.

That said I remain hopeful that you will do the right thing.


Yours faithfully,

Nelson Kruschandl (Victim & Informant)

Fraud is any statement or action that deceives another person, and in so doing causes a loss to the victim. Fraud, is also the failure to do something that is required in a position of authority - such as failing to seek advice from the County Archaeologist and English Heritage in accordance with Government Circulars. In this case it is alleged that Wealden only put forward one side of an argument, and that they failed to seek the proper assurances from the experts, as per Government guidance. This is of course a crucial omission on the part of those officers involved in the preparations of: 1. An enforcement report to the Members 2. Prior to service of an Enforcement Notice, and 3. An appeal where an Inspector will be making a decision and needs accurate facts on the table in order to make a decision that is safe. If the facts upon which a decision is based are incorrect (false or have been crafted) then the decision reached is ultra vires (invalid).

Consider then paragraph 17 of the Decision Letter from R P Dannreuther in 1987. In this paragraph the Inspector says that: "the foundation of a previous building do not merit special attention." This is a crucial error on the part of Dannreuther, because he has been persuaded that the building he is looking at is not the original generating building, but a building of "corrugated metal construction" built over foundations from another building that has no archaeological merit. This would never have happened if Wealden had done their duty and consulted the experts. Whether or not this was deliberate is irrelevant, as officers of the Court they were obliged to follow the correct procedure. Not to do so is both improprietous and maladministration - but more importantly, deprived the appellant of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 - thus is also a human rights violation - that travels back in time if a Council fail to correct any decision or data entry that is erroneous and carries forward that which is now a violation under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Consider now paragraph 20, where Inspector Dannreuther says: The building itself, because of its materials and construction is an unattractive feature in the rural scene." Here again, the Inspector has erred in fact, because he has incorrectly assumed that the corrugated metal is the construction method. Whereas, the building is of timber construction (like many other barn conversions) and was merely sheathed in corrugated metal during WWII hostilities as a fire precaution. That metal covering has now gone save one small section under repair.

One way of hiding a fraud, is to do nothing that might reveal that fraud, such as to compile a list of local building of interest, when one knows that they have obtained a decision by what is now defined as a statutory fraud. Perpetuating known incorrect decisions to cause a person loss, brings the offence from 1986 into frame for prosecution in 2014.

Victorio Patrick Scarpa, Christine Nuttall, David Phillips & Charles (Charlie) Lant

Kelvin Williams, J. Douglas Moss and Ian M. Kay

Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311

WHY NOT EMAIL A COUNCILOR TO HAVE YOUR SAY ABOUT THIS FRAUD

cllr.susan.stedman@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.stuart.towner@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.stephen.shing@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.ron.cussons@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.raymond.cade@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.nigel.mckeeman@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.lin.clark@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.john.blake@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.jan.dunk@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.dick.angel@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.dianne.dear@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.david.white@wealden.gov.uk
daniel.shing@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.chris.hardy@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.chriss.triandafyllou@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.charles.peck@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.barry.marlowe@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.barby.dashwood-morris@wealden.gov.uk
cllr.ann.newton@wealden.gov.uk

Dick Angel - Jo Bentley - John Blake - Bob Bowdler - Don Broadbent - Norman Buck - Raymond Cade - John Carvey - Lin Clark
Nicholas Collinson - Nigel Coltman - Ronald Cussons - Barby Dashwood-Morris - Dianne Dear - Phil Dixon - Pam Doodes

  Claire Dowling - Jan Dunk - Louise Eastwood - Philip Ede - Helen Firth - Toby Illingworth - Jonica Fox - Roy Galley - Richard Grocock - Chris Hardy

Steve Harms - Jim Hollins - Peter Holloway - Johanna Howell - Stephen Isted - David Larkin - Andy Long - Michael Lunn

Barry Marlowe - Nigel McKeeman - Huw Merriman - Rowena Moore - Kay Moss - Douglas Murray - Ann Newton - Ken Ogden

Amanda O'Rawe - Charles R Peck - Diane Phillips - Mark Pinkney - Major Antony Quin RM - Ronald Reed - Dr. Brian Redman

Carol Reynolds - Greg Rose - Peter Roundell - William Rutherford - Daniel Shing - Oi Lin Shing - Raymond Shing - Stephen Shing

Robert Standley - Susan Stedman - Bill Tooley - Jeanette Towey - Stuart Towner - Chriss Triandafyllou - Peter Waldock

Neil Waller - David Watts - Mark Weaver -Graham Wells - David White - John Wilton

UK legislation Fraud Act 2006 index page

Wikipedia Fraud_Act_2006

Action fraud police UK

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006

Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Bending Christopher - Ditto  - Black Julian

Boakes Beverley - Paul Barker - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Elphick Christopher

Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martin - Goodwin Daniel - Hall David - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff

Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Lant Charles - Leyton Benjamin - Meagher Rowanne - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.

Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor - Stewart Kevin - Turner Claire

Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - White Steve - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth