Can criminal fraud exist without damages?
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
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
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
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
add a comment |
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
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
united-states fraud
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
edited 8 hours ago
A. K.
1,3921127
1,3921127
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
asked 13 hours ago
user24954user24954
552
552
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
4
4
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
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
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
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.
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
@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
9 hours ago
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.
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
1
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
9 hours ago
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
});
}
});
user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
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
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
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.
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
@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
9 hours ago
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.
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.
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
@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
9 hours ago
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.
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.
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
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.
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.
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
edited 9 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
answered 12 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14.8k3159
14.8k3159
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
@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
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
@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
9 hours ago
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
– user24954
9 hours ago
2
2
@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
9 hours ago
@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
9 hours ago
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.
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
1
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
9 hours ago
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.
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
1
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
9 hours ago
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.
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
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.
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
answered 12 hours ago
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,0421827
3,0421827
1
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
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
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
9 hours ago
1
1
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
9 hours ago
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
9 hours ago
add a comment |
user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
– Ron Beyer
13 hours ago
@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
12 hours ago
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
7 hours ago