Making gain or causing loss by deception

setantamise

Would the definition of "loss" for the purposes of this Act {see below} include the loss of employment {i.e. loss of income} ?




Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making gain or causing loss by deception

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.



(3) For the purposes of this Act

(a) “gain” and “loss” are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, whether any such gain or loss is temporary or permanent,

(b) “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not, and

(c) “loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.

Tom Young

This is a criminal statute. Employment issues are civil issues.

MagicSean

Tom Young wrote: »

This is a criminal statute. Employment issues are civil issues.

If a person where to provide false information to anothers employer and the result was a dismissal then could there not be a case to answer here under criminal law?

setantamise

Without going into detail, this is exactly what happened.

Peregrinus

So, A tells B's employer something false about B, and as a result of being told this B's employer dismisses B, and the loss B suffers is the wages he would have got, had he not been dismissed?

That seems to come within the section. However:

To secure a conviction, the prosecution will have to show that A was dishonest, i.e. that what he said was false, and that he knew it to be false. The onus of proof is on them; A does not have to prove either the truth of what he said, or his own belief in its truth.

The prosecution will also have to prove A's intention to cause loss to B. It's not enough that A's action did in fact cause B's dismissal; A must hve intended that. In fact, he must have "induced" B's employer to dismiss B, which I think might suggest that A must have urged B's employer to that particular course of action. It may not be enough that he simply blackened B's name, and left B's employer to decide for himself whether to take any action, and what action to take. I think this crucially depends on what exactly A said; if he said something that, if true, must inevitably lead to B's dismissal, he might be taken to have induced the dismissal even if he never actually suggested it, but if he merely cast doubt on B's general character or qualities ("he's not the brightest bulb in the box"; "he can be very slow on the uptake") that probably wouldn't be enough, even if it was forseeable that this would be harmful to B in his employment.

setantamise

Thanks Peregrinus. I'm pretty sure I can prove the deception part. There were two of them involved & they left a two & a half year long paper trail. It was the defiinition of loss that I was worried about.

Tom Young

The point here is that you don't prosecute this, the police do.

setantamise

Thanks for the clarification Tom. I'm actually trying to avoid litigation. I'm trying to put pressure on the employer {I know them personally so not as mad as it sounds} to rectify the situation, & I just wanted to be sure I had my facts right.

MagicSean

setantamise wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Tom. I'm actually trying to avoid litigation. I'm trying to put pressure on the employer {I know them personally so not as mad as it sounds} to rectify the situation, & I just wanted to be sure I had my facts right.

The issue between you and your employer is one of employment law. The issue between you and the third party is one of defamation and potential criminal law.