Hcfyk

What does "function" actually mean in music?

What is meant by "Prämie" in this letter? Do I have to pay it or it is just a reminder?

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

Find the identical rows in a matrix

"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

What is the optimal strategy for the Dictionary Game?

How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?

As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?

How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?

Who is the character that appears at the end of Endgame?

How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?

Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?

Magical attacks and overcoming damage resistance

Thesis on avalanche prediction using One Class SVM

If a planet has 3 moons, is it possible to have triple Full/New Moons at once?

Why was the Spitfire's elliptical wing almost uncopied by other aircraft of World War 2?

Read line from file and process something

Can I enter Heaven by simply doing good deeds while on Earth?

How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?

Covering null sets by a finite number of intervals

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

Your bread will be buttered on both sides

How did Captain America use this in Avengers: Endgame?

Can criminal fraud exist without damages?

Someone withdrew money from my bank account - what are my rights?Is a high % agent commission contract clause fraud in your jurisdiction?What is the difference between civil fraud and criminal fraud?Can the Feds not put Bank Executives (or their employees) in Prison for Fraud?Why a civil court can order damages for killing a person?How well can one know the rules in gambling before it's legally fraud?If the damages from a lawsuit force the defendant into bankruptcy, are they forgiven?How is getting foreign investors to support your bank fraud? (Barclays)Do we have attempted fraud laws like we have attempted murder?Is Intentional Immaterial Fraud Legal?

9

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
  
  – Ron Beyer
  Mar 26 at 21:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RonBeyer your case is different, because the robber has not committed fraud, but theft. And yes, it would still be a crime, even if you pay the money back later.
  
  – Shazamo Morebucks
  Mar 26 at 22:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I feel like the last question should be edited out because it doesn't make sense. A case is either criminal or civil. Civil and criminal statutes are different (though sometimes related) and only a government prosecutor can bring a criminal charge against a person, while anyone can file civil charges. Most importantly, the a set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal cases, or it could be sufficient for some but not others, or none.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  Mar 27 at 3:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you mean: "If I tell someone I put his money in some investment A, but I put his money into a different investment B, and then pay him back at the agreed time with the amount he expects if his money was invested in A, is it fraud?"
  
  – Alexander
  Mar 27 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you also pay interest on your fraudulently-acquired "loan"?
  
  – RonJohn
  Mar 27 at 18:36
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

9

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
  
  – Ron Beyer
  Mar 26 at 21:50
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RonBeyer your case is different, because the robber has not committed fraud, but theft. And yes, it would still be a crime, even if you pay the money back later.
  
  – Shazamo Morebucks
  Mar 26 at 22:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I feel like the last question should be edited out because it doesn't make sense. A case is either criminal or civil. Civil and criminal statutes are different (though sometimes related) and only a government prosecutor can bring a criminal charge against a person, while anyone can file civil charges. Most importantly, the a set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal cases, or it could be sufficient for some but not others, or none.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  Mar 27 at 3:28
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you mean: "If I tell someone I put his money in some investment A, but I put his money into a different investment B, and then pay him back at the agreed time with the amount he expects if his money was invested in A, is it fraud?"
  
  – Alexander
  Mar 27 at 16:25
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you also pay interest on your fraudulently-acquired "loan"?
  
  – RonJohn
  Mar 27 at 18:36
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

share|improve this question

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

share|improve this question

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

edited Mar 27 at 2:01

A. K.

1,6631129

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

asked Mar 26 at 21:46

user24954user24954

6113

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

23

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:54

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  Mar 27 at 1:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  Mar 27 at 19:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 19:52
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:14
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38459%2fcan-criminal-fraud-exist-without-damages%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

23

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:54

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  Mar 27 at 1:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  Mar 27 at 19:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 19:52
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

23

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:54

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  Mar 27 at 1:05
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  Mar 27 at 19:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 19:52
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:54

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

share|improve this answer

edited Mar 27 at 19:54

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

answered Mar 26 at 22:14

David SiegelDavid Siegel

17.9k3768

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:14
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  Mar 27 at 1:14
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828

answered Mar 26 at 22:29

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1901828