Forgery meaning

Testamentary capacity Oliver v Oliver [2024] EWHC 2289 (Ch) – News Analysis: Will overturned for want of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver). This judgment is an uncommon instance of a successful attack on a professionally drafted Will for both incapacity and coercion, even where the court had a recording of the testator’s instructions and the GP had issued a supporting certificate. Despite those formalities, the court concluded the Will should be set aside on both grounds. Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP. Leonard v Leonard (by her litigation friend Sharon Thompsett) [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch) – News Analysis: High Court offers guidance on the test for testamentary capacity (Leonard v Leonard). The High Court examines and clarifies Banks v Goodfellow, and underscores the continuing importance of expert evidence in capacity disputes. It underscores how clinical and legal evaluations interact closely, effectively. George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers. Wilkinson v Hicken [2023] EWHC 1983 (Ch) – News Analysis: Personality disorders...

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) A DPA is a negotiated agreement between an organisation and a designated prosecutor, allowing the latter to defer a prosecution by staying an indictment on set conditions. Whilst the DPA remains in force, no proceedings relating to the covered matters may be brought against the organisation. Consequently, a company can continue operating without a protracted criminal investigation or an expensive prosecution hanging over it. For detailed information on DPAs, see the Practice Notes below: Deferred prosecution agreements DPA process Terms and content of a DPA DPAs in practice DPAs are only available to organisations for the offences specified in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17 (CCA 2013). The checklist below lists the offences for which a DPA may be entered into, covering both common law and statutory offences. In addition, any offence that is ancillary to those offences is eligible for disposal by a DPA. Ancillary offences include aiding and abetting, or...

In this issue: Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Appeals and judicial review Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Other corporate crime updates LexTalk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Deferred Prosecution Agreements—an ‘expiry date’ or a ‘best before’? (Guralp Systems Ltd v Serious Fraud Office) The statutory framework for Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) requires an expiry date within every DPA, mandates that any breach application is made while the DPA remains in force, and provides that where a DPA lasts until its expiry, the proceedings are to be discontinued. In this case, the DPA’s terms specified effectiveness for...

In this issue: Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Appeal and judicial review Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Money laundering International LexTalk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal procedure and evidence Court delays soar as backlogs break records Between April and June 2025, the criminal courts in England and Wales amassed an unprecedented caseload of almost 440,000, with incoming matters exceeding disposals and a system hampered by long-standing funding shortfalls. In response, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), together with The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, confirmed extra resources to accelerate outcomes for...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Whistleblowing in the UK—Still a long road ahead Rahman Ravelli’s legal director, Dr Angelika Hellweger, together with associate, Tatiana Novikova, examine how the UK handles whistleblowing. They map out the present UK statutory position and other relevant mechanisms, assess the scope of the safeguards they afford, and set these against the options open to whistleblowers in the United States of America. They also describe the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) whistleblower reward initiative announced near the end of 2025,...

This Practice Note sets out the offences of fraud by failing to disclose and fraud by abuse of position under sections 3 and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006). Each is a means by which the general fraud offence in FrA 2006, s 1 can be committed. These offences are most often brought against professionals, fiduciaries, or those in positions of trust, or with a fiduciary relationship to the victim. Fraud by failure to disclose information An offence of fraud by failing to disclose is made out where a defendant: dishonestly withholds information from another when under a legal duty to reveal it, and intends to secure a gain for themselves or someone else, or intends to cause another a loss, or to expose them to the risk of loss Conduct falling within this description constitutes the general fraud offence under FrA 2006, s 1. The emphasis is on the defendant’s conduct and intention; it does not matter...

Fraud by false representation This Practice Note considers the offence of fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006), read together with FrA 2006, section 1. The constituent elements are: making a false representation dishonestly knowing that the representation is, or might be, untrue or misleading with the intention of obtaining a gain for the defendant or another, causing loss to another, or exposing another to the risk of loss The offence spans a wide range of behaviour. No actual gain or loss is required, and the representation need not in fact deceive anyone for FrA 2006 liability to arise. The offence is complete once a false representation is made with the necessary knowledge, dishonesty and intent, and it is immaterial whether anyone is aware of it... You may also be interested in the following Practice Notes: Fraud by failure to disclose and abuse of position Obtaining services...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note monitored how bills moved through Parliament throughout the session running from June 2017 to October 2019, which concluded with the Prorogation of Parliament on 8 October 2019 as noted here. Prorogation brings to a close all outstanding Parliamentary bills that have not obtained Royal Assent, unless a motion in either House carries them over in the usual way. Two of the bills from that Parliamentary session were carried over to the next session. Parliament is scheduled to re-open on 14 October 2019, and measures progressing in the subsequent session will be tracked separately. On 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the prorogation of Parliament, made by Order in Council dated 28 August 2019, was unlawful, null and of no effect. Consequently, Parliament was not in fact prorogued on 9 September 2019. For more detail, see: LNB News 24/09/2019 21. See Q&As: What is prorogation of Parliament? and How is prorogation of Parliament relevant to Brexit? Accordingly, the...